Judgment.

'Before giving judgment in this very important case, the Court desires to acknowledge the valuable assistance it has received during the conduct of a protracted and very tedious investigation, both from the Agent who has appeared for the Native claimants, and from the counsel for the Crown; also to express its satisfaction at the very orderly behaviour of the Natives.

We do not consider it necessary here to revise in detail the mass of evidence which has been brought before us, nor to advert to the arguments contained in the addresses of the agent for the natives, and the counsel for the : Crown, further than to say, that they have been carefully considered by us before coming to a decision.

The claim of Parakaia Te Pouepa and others, to a certain block of land called Himatangi, the boundaries of which have been described, and are delineated in a sketch plan before the Court, has been referred for the purpose of being investigated and adjudicated upon in the manner prescribed by the Native Lands Act, 1865. The claimants apply to the Court to order a certificate of their title, asserting lights alleged to have been acquired by conquest, followed by actual occupation. Evidence has been adduced to prove page cxiv that the original owners were conquered and dispossessed, and that the land has been in the possession and occupation of the claimants from a period antecedent to the establishment of British government in these islands to the present time.

The Crown objects to a certificate of ownership being ordered, asserting as a ground of objection, and adducing evidence thereon, that the claimants have not acquired rights by conquest—that the orignal occupants have never been dispossessed—that the latter were the rightful owners of the land up to the period of its cession by them to the Crown; and further, that the claimants have not occupied more than a small portion of the block claimed.

We have found it impossible to give a decision in this case without first determining an important question raised in the course of this investigation—that of the conflicting tribal claims asserted by the Ngatiraukawa on one side, and the Ngatiapa and Rangitane on the other, to the country lying between the Manawatu and Rangitikei Rivers. We consider that there is sufficient evidence before the Court to enable us to decide this question of tribal right, and by recording our decision on this point in the present judgment, we indicate a principle which may be conveniently and justly applied by this Court in dealing with other cases of claims in the Rangitikei-Manawatu Block, which have been, or may be, referred to it. Looking at the evidence, it is clear to us that before the period of the establishment of British governments, the Ngatiraukawa tribe had acquired and exercised rights of ownership over the territory in question. The prominent part taken by this tribe in connection with the cession of the North Rangitikei and Ahuoturanga Blocks, the sale of the Awahou, and the history of the leases, prove also that those rights have been maintained up to the present time.

On the other hand, the evidence shews that the original occupiers of the soil were never absolutely dispossessed, and that they have never ceased on their part to assert and exercise rights of ownership.

The fact established by the evidence, is that the Ngatiapa-Rangitane, weakened by the Ngatitoa invasion, under Te Rauparaha, were compelled to share their territory with his principal allies the Ngatiraukawa, and to acquiesce in a joint ownership.

Our decision on this question of tribal title is that Ngatiraukawa and the original owners possessed equal interests in, and rights over, the land in question, at the time when the negotiations for the cession to the Crown of the Rangitikei-Manawatu Block were entered upon.

The tribal interest of Ngatiraukawa we consider vested in the section of the tribe which has been in actual occupation, to the exclusion of all others.

It has been proved to the satisfaction of the Court that Parakaia and his co- page cxv claimants comprise that section of the Ngatiraukawa tribe which has acquired rights by occupation over the Himatangi Block. The tribal interest, therefore, rests solely in them. The claim preferred on behalf of Ihakara and the Patukohuru, founded on temporary occupation, we do not admit.

A list of twenty-seven (27) persons, proved to be jointly interested with Parakaia, is before the Court. Two of these having signed the deed of cession cannot appear in this Court as claimants.

The decision of the Court, therefore, is that Parakaia and his co-claimants are entitled to a certificate in their favor for one-half, less two twenty-sevenths (2-27ths) of the Block claimed, and an interlocutory order will be made by us in favour of the eight (8) persons who have been named to the Court as representing the claimants.

to a parcel of land at Manawatu, containing, by estimation, five thousand five hundred (5,500) acres, being part of a block of land known to the Court as the Himatangi Block, be made and issued to the Governor, if within six (6) months the claimaints shall furnish a proper survey thereof to the satisfaction of the Court, or of the Chief Judge; the said parcel of land to be comprised within the boundaries of the said Himatangi Block, to contain an area not exceeding twenty-five fifty-fourths (25-54ths) of the said Block, and to have for its boundary on the east, the Manawatu River from Pakingahau to Whitirea. And it is further ordered that the Court do recommend to the Governor that the following condition be attached to the grant issuable to the claimants in pursuance of the certificate above referred to, viz.—that no portion of the land to be comprised in the said certificate shall be alienated by sale, gift, mortgage, lease, or otherwise, except by lease for a term not exceeding twenty-one (21) years, until it shall have been sub-divided under the loth clause of the Native Lands Act, 1865.'"