In June 1881 Ripeka Parehuia and Raiha Whakaraua asked that the balance of the money due to them for purchase of their interests be paid.
The Native Land Court gave judgement in our favour for 341½ acres of land. Now, selling this land at 5/- per acre, the total amount would be £85–7–6d. We have received £20 leaving a balance of £65–7–6d. It is for the last amount we pray for your favourable consideration.98
Wilkinson reported on their request that
The correct particulars connected with this claim are as follows:
The area within the Ohinemuri Block to which Ripeka Parehuia, alias Ripeka Taha Kirini, is entitled is in Ohinemuri No 10 block 4½ acres, in Ohinemuri No 17 block 168½ acres, total 173acres, worth (at 5/- per acre) £43–5–0d. The amount of money had by her is £10 on the 20th September 1878.
The area to which the other clamant Ruiha Whakaraua, alias Ruiha Kemara (sister of Ripeka Parehuia) is entitled to is 168½ acres in the Ohinemuri No 17 block, worth £42–2–6d. This woman had £20 on 24th June 1873 and another Lao on 20th September 1878, a voucher for which is signed by herself and husband Te Kemara Tiraruahine, the half of which amount is fairly chargeable to her, making altogether £30 had by her since the commencement. It is fair however to her to state that the payment of the first £20 was previous to the opening of the Ohinemuri Goldfield in 1875, and was in all probability included in the £15,000 debt that was charged at that time against the Ohinemuri Block, and in liquidation of which the Government, since March 1875 to the present time, have been drawing Miners Rights and other fees which, were it nor for that debt would be payable to the Natives. From my own personal knowledge a great many of the large amounts now standing in my Land Purchase Ledger as still payable by Natives should in many cases be wholly or partially accounted for in the before mentioned £15,000, but unfortunately there is nothing in my books to show (nor am I aware that Mr Mackay ever supplied any data to my predecessors) as to which portion of those monies had by Natives were met by having those portions transferred to the £15,000 charged against the Goldfield. I remember Mr Mackay had a meeting with the Natives at Ohinemuri about this matter, and after going into amounts a satisfactory arrangement was apparently come to concerning it, and each Native was supplied with a slip of paper by Mr Mackay showing the amount of his previous liability and also the amount of same after the question of accounts had been gone into. I think it will be found that when the final settlement of this Ohinemuri question comes before the Court, that the Natives will bring this matter up and it will require explanation.
These claims, more especially that of Ripeka Te Parehuia, may be considered as amongst those referred to by me in the last paragraph of my letter to you on 3rd February last ... , having reference to the claim of one Merea Wikiriwhi. It should however be borne in mind that in the case of the woman Ruiha Whakaraua that her husband Te Kemara Tiraruahine was paid by Mr Mackay the large sum of £314–16–od on Ohinemuri, whereas his interest within the whole of that block was only 168½ acres (worth £42–2–6d), and it is most likely that although this money was signed for and charged only to Te Kemara that his wife participated to a great interest in it.99
Wilkinson was instructed to tell Parehuia and Raiha that "the matter will be carefully inquired into the next time the N.L. Court will sit at Ohinemuri."100
98 Ripeka Parehuia and Raiha Whakaraua, Paeroa, to Native Minister, 6 June 1881. Maori Affairs Head Office file MLP 1881/246. Supporting Papers #B36.155–257.
99 Land Purchase Officer Thames to Under Secretary Native Land Purchase Department, 8 July 1881. Maori Affairs Head Office file MLP 1881/246. Supporting Papers #B36.158–159.
100 Under Secretary Native Land Purchase Department to Land Purchase Officer Thames, 18 July 1881. Maori Affairs Head Office file MLP 1881/246. Supporting Papers #B36.160.
25