The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1875-09-15

MOBILES and Representatives of the people il
Legislative Council assembled, and having beel
carefully considered, il was
ReSotred; That the same are hereby approved
and it is enacted that from the date hereof, al
claims for landed property in this Kingdom shall
be tested by those principles, and according t.
them be confirmed or rejected. KANEHAxEuA.
KEoN ANA
Council House. Honolulu, Oct. 10th, 1876"
Neither Kaupena. Namauu, KekuanaOa MOI
any person received an award for this lot, Tex.
cepting the portions eoupriled by the royal
patents above intentionally though the counsel
for the plaintiff. amer their case had closed
showed the Contra copy Of an application for an
award Of this lot by Namauu.
The Land Commission, however, did not award
il; and by the force aud effect Of the Statutes
above quoted. it must be considered to still be-
long to the Government
This is Substantially the view takeu by the
Court in former adjudication in regard to these
same premises, in the suit Of Kanaina vs. Long.
(January term. ls72) 1t was there decided
that building lot or town lot. as sometimes
called, formed new class Of real property, not
affected by the rules OF the ordinary kuleanas.
that is that such lot il it escheats for want Of
heirs escheats to the state and not to the lord Of
the ahupuaa, and upon failure of title, the lot
might DO recovered by the Hawaiian Govern
ment, but never by the lord of Waikahalulu'
See Keelikolani VS.. Robinson, . Haw'u., 54s.
The theory Of titles by prescription. is that the
holding possession of an estate openly and adj
versely for a certain length Of time. creates an
inference that there was grant from the adverse
claimant or his ancestors or grantors, and the
Statute Of limitations forbids the adverse claim
ant from setting up against this long continued
possession, the fact that there was no grant
But as against the Government, from whom oil
the titles in this Kingdom emauate grant can
not be presumed or inferred from long possession
in the teeth of the law which reqred claimants
to land to present their claims to the Land Com
mission for confirmation or rejection.
As stated in the case Of Kanaiua vs. Long,
this board, (ihe Land Commssiou) was Court OF
record, and here was the adjudication Of which
all parties in interest were obliged to take notice
But, it may be urged that the length of ad-
verse possession since the closing Of the Land
Commission creates the inference OF grant To
this the answer is complete. There is no pre-
scrp,ion against the state "Qaod uullum TEN.
pus occurrid regi." A state cannot be dis
seized" . Washbsrn r. D. p 525
In Gibson vs.. Chouteau, 10 Wallace 90. (ls7l)
Mr. Justice Field says; " 1t is matter of com
mon knowledge that statutes Of limitation do
not run against the state That no laches can
be imputed to the King and that no time can
bar his rights, was the maxim of the common
law, and was founded on the principle of public
policy, that as he was occupied with the cares of
Government, he ought not to suffer nom the neg
ligence of his officers and servants. The priuci-
pie is applicable to all governments, which must
necessarily act through numerous agents. and is
essential to q preservation Of the interests and
property of the public"
See also United States w. Hoar, . Mason 81.
The People vs.. Gilbert, is johnson. 227.
Stoughton ct al vs.. Baker, ct al. Mass, D. 52s.
In Lindsey vs.. MiIler's Lessee, 6 Peters, 672,
Mr.. Justice Mclean says at is o well settled
principle. that the Statute Of limitations does not
run against state. If contrary rule was sauc-
toned, it would only be necessary for intruders
upon the public lands, to maintain their posses
sion until the Statute Of limitations shall run
and then they would become invested with the
title against the government, and all persons
claiming under it. In this way, the public do
main would soon be appropriated by adventurers
Indeed, it would be utterly impncticable, by the
use Of any power within the reach of the govern.
ment, to prevent this result. 1t is only ueces-
sary, therefore, to state the case in order to
show the wisdom and propriety OF the rule that
the Statute never Operates against the govern
nen."
For the reason, therefore, that the mere pos
session of this lot by the plaintiff, and her ances-
tors makes 40 presumption Of grant as against
he government, Judgment must be rendered for
he defendant.
ELISHA II. ALLEN,
Gas. c. HARRIs,
A. Francis JuDD.
A. Kalauli and ]. K. Uuauna for plaintiff; the