The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1859-08-11
Supreme Cours.-July Term.
Concluded. }

Kaopua and .Nahua. Administrator upon the es-
tate of Kalaiheana deceased, VS.. Ioans 1.-The re-
port of this case, given in our last issue, was not suf-
6ciently explicit, we therefore publish the following
This was an action Of ejectment to recover the pos
session of some land belonging to the estate Of Ka-
laiheana, deceased.
Mr.. Blair, the counsel for the plaintiffs, in open
ing the case to the Jury, stated, that the title rested
upon an award of the Land Commission TO the intest-
ate upon which Mr.. Bates. counsel for the defend
ant, moved a non-suit on the ground that the title
Of the real estate would rest in the heirs, and there
fore that an administrators could not sustain the
action.
The counsel for plaintiffs argued that the interest
In the an land %,r. was a CHI shatte dldniSs Ghl sssnSss Granted shs an
unconditional interest i'm the land to the intestate,
Kalaiheana, for thirty years only, and that the
raising Of that interest to the dignity Of an estate Of
freehold, or fee simple, depended upon the payment
of the Communication, or one-third of the value of the
land, to the Government, which had not then been.
and might never be done.
The counsel for the defendant contended that the
estate confirmed by the award of the Board, was a
freehold, because the intestate had, before his death,
and afterwards his heirs, the privilege of making it
so, by the payment of the Communication money to
Government.
The Court sustained the position Of the defendant,
md ruled accordingly.
Louis Sigilas, vs.. J. n. Broun, Sheriff of
Oahu.-This was an action Of replevin to recover pos
session of a sewing machine levied upon by the
Sheriff.
The plaintiff claimed the sewing machine as being
purchased of one Aylett, the defendant in execution
for SIS.
/. The Police Justice, not feeling convinced from the
evidence, of the validity Of the plaintiffs title, rem
dered judgement for defendant, from which decision
plaintiffs counsel appealed to the Supreme Court,
where the case was heard at the sitting in banco on
the 23d July last, the counsel consenting to submit
the case to the consideration Of the Court without n
Jury, upon the record of the Police Court, with the
privilege of introducing some little additional testi-
mony.
The Court having heard the further evidence adj
duced, and the arguments of counsel, and having
given mature consideration to all the evidence in the
case. were of the opinion that the title to the sewing
machine in question, was in Aylett, the judgment
debtor. at the time the same was levied upon by the
Sheriff, and affirmed the decision Of the Police JUS
tice accordingly.
c. c. Harris for Plaintiff.
J. Montgomery for Defendant.
Samuel Hoe vs.. W. Kinney Of Honolulu.-This
was also an appeal from the decision Of the Police
Justice. Plaintiff claimed $50 for balance of COM
pensation according to contract for digging certain
bitches or drains for defendant ut Waikiki.
p,.:..:e the amount in the
roi'ce Court, and defendant appealed to the Supreme
Court.
appeared to the Court that the plaintiff had con.
tracted to perform an entire piece of work for an en-
"re compensation, and that before he could sustain
an action to recover it. or any part of it, he must
have proved a complete performance of the contract
on MS own part. This the Court thouhpt he had
Jailed to do. and as it appeared from the testimony
that he had already received from the defendant at
least as large a proportion of the stipulated price as
the work actually performed bore to the entire work
contracted for, the Court reversed the decision of the
Court below, and ordered judgment to be entered for
the defendant.
c. c. Harris for Plaintiff.
J. Montgomery for Defendant.