Monday April 27th
The court sat at 12 noon.
Present – same judges (3) and assessors (2)
Himatangi – Parakaia Te Pouepa and others
The court proceeded to give judgment in this case as follows:
Judgment in case of referred claim of Parakaia Te Pouepa and others to Himatangi.
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 crown, also to express its satisfaction at the very orderly behavior of the natives.
We do not consider it necessary here to review 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 rights alleged to have been acquired by conquest followed by actual occupation. Evidence has been adduced to prove 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 original 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 one 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. 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 Ranitikei 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 Government the Ngatiraukawa tribe in connection with the cession of the North Rangitikei and Ahu o turanga blocks, the sale of Te Awahou and the history of the leases prove also that these rights have been maintained up to the present time.
On the other hand the evidence shows 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 territiory with his powerful 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-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 upon 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 for one half, less two twenty sevenths (2/27 ths), of the blosck claimed and an interlocutory order will be made by us in favor of the eight (8) persons who have been named to the court as representing the claimants.
It is accordingly ordered that a certificate of the title of
Parakaia Te Pouepa Roera Rangiheuea Pitihira Te Kuru
Hakopa Te Tehe Nirai Taraotea Amiria Taraotea
Kipa Te Whetu Mirika Te Kuru
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 to the court as the Himatangi Block be made and issued to the governor. If within six(6) months the claimants 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 (25/54 ths) of the said block and to have for its boundary on the east of 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, rize, 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 subdivided under the XV clause of the “Native Lands Act 1865”.
(Signed) Thos H. Smith, Presiding Judge – April 27th 1868.
Judgment interpreted by Mr. Young.
Fees charged £3 usual Invest £1 Cert £1 Grant £1
The Presiding Judge adverted to a letter referred to the court signed by Te Kooro Te One and others expressing dissatisfaction at the adjournment of the court to Rangitikei and stated that the court saw no reason to depart from its decision with reference to the application of the counsel for the crown for an adjournment to Rangitikei.
The court was then adjourned to Rangitikei to Tuesday the 12th of May. T. H. S 27 April 1868.
Transcribed by Matilda Mauheni of Ngati Porou. 15 March 2011.
