The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1877-05-09
= fore the fall Court, aud the exception. allowed

I" fore the foil Court, aud the exceptions allowed
I" by them"
II is not sufficient therefore that some passing
exceptions should have been noted to the ruling
OF the Judge az the trial. which is only CON-
pliance with the seventh rule of Court. But
they likewise. according to the statute above
quoted. must be presented to the Judge before
1 the hnal adjournment of the Court Cor the term
and be signed by him.
No such exceptions were presented to me o.
signed by NE.
| Ca the Goth Of January 1876 signed paper
! parpOrtins To be Bll of Exceptions oeIng eu-
tireiy misled. This paper aiterwsrd recalled
When had read 1t over carefnliy, and found it
Inconsistent with the law having first called
both Counsel, and pointed gu, To them the man
ner in which | had been misei and the impro-
4 priety OF the paper. How that paper appears
sgain oa the Record, | am at loss to under
stand it shouId be taken of the file. then
gave the Counsel for defendants the opportunity
TO Gle exceptions, il he could. of the last day
OF the term, and he did Gle the following: - In
f" the Sapreme Court of the Hawaiian Islands.
OF the January Term 1876.
+" kaa,hue ct al vs.. Elizabeth Crabbe ct al.
Action OF Ejecment
Be il remembered that during the trial OF
the above cause, the defendants attorney OF.
" fered in evidence copy OF the Judgment OF
the Police Coart, Honolulu aud the writ of
possession therein da,ed-isy ot-lSI3,
I" in the case of Juha Meek vs.. 0opa, IN a pos
sessory action ~ said Police Court. IN order to
show an ACT Of possession and a tenancy OF
Oopa under John Meek. when the Court
Piled that il was no evidence Of y tenancy. but
=" only evidence OF the Police Magistrates opin.
- ion 10 that effect, but il evidence that the
a. alleged prescription broken tina; day sud
could be admitted Tor tha, purpose. 10 which
ruling OF the Court, the defendants attorney
" excepted. BY observing that he would have the
point on said ruling.
That after evdeace had been closed, the de.
PENDANTS attorney, among Others, asked the
following instruction That the fact of legal
custer OF 0opa by writ ot possession based
on Judgment OF the Police Court in favor OF
John Meek vs.. 00pa, ,eeds To show a tenancy
a of oopa under John Meek" Which inslruc-
ton was refused uy the Court, to which opin-
ion Of the Court 10 refusing said instruction,
the defendants attorney excepted. BY using the
words that he saved the point on all instruc-
tons asked BY him and refused by the Court.
(sigued) W. C. JoNEs.
Attorney for Defendants.
This | refused TO sign 90 The ground that
/ they had alleged nothing in accordance with the
seventh rule Of Court, and 10 fact they had made
l no such exception. at the time then reduced 10
/ writing NV remembrance VI the case from my
notes and memory aud gave Defendants Coun-
Z sci the opportunity To show oy aiiiavits that
I my memory or statement was inaccurate. THIS
I he declined to do, and therefore by the very
force of the statute there were no exceptions
before the Appellate Court, and | cannot but
I gard il as exceedingly dangerous Tor the Court
I 10 take up points which are not raised by C0un-
Z sci Ia the regular way, and express an opinion
l upon them. Ii is likewise u mistake to suppose
that it lost SIGHT Of ali the trial. whether or
not the possession OF Oopa would inure only to
the benefit OF haainue or oi hssihne and all the
other plslntifs. Bat on The contrary. 10 point
Z Of fact. ii was suggested by the Counsel for the
defendants and abandoned BY him because it
was conceived that II 0opa had held at all he
bad held for himself and Lls eo-heirs and that if
the prescription should be found 10 have run in
favor Of 0Opa. 1t could make no difference to de-
I lendant whether be held the land for himself
alone or Tor himself and Others. His petition
Z fled the l7th of March 1873. sets forth and de-
/ elares that he claimed il for himself aud his CO.
heirs. Ii will be observed then that the points
I alleged in the Bill Of Exceptions which were re-
fused on the l0Ih Of AyriI 1876 regarded only the
/ effect of the possesSory suit 10 the Police Court
aud judgment thereon. and that the majority Of
+ the Court concurred with me in the opinion
| ihen expressed. that said suit had no effect
I other than TO interrupt the Statute of LimIla-
J tons
Therefore. il seems to me, the only point
which remained for the Court to decide on the
motion for new trial is whether the verdict of
I the jury Is contrary to the Law and evidence.
TIE grounds upon which the plaintiffs claimed
! this property were that they were the direct
/ heirs OF kaamau TO whom the Land Commits
sion made the original award which award is
dated April LIST 1850 that 0Opa had been put
/ in possession OF il by Kalsmaa herself previous
2 to her departure Tor Hawai- whether she had
I gone being sick. as Mr.. Dosseit says about 1850
Z and that be continued to hold it from that time
/ for kalamsu during her lie time aud after her
death for hSlamaa heirs OF which he was one, up
I 10 the l4th OF March 1873. al which time. he
ousied by process from the Police and District
Court Of h0n0lala. Plaintiff was claiming that
Oops did not enter in subseryiency to the title
/ ofthe real owner--calliug Meek the real owner,
but under halaman aud therefore he had no
occasion TO bring home bis adverse right to
Meek as the owaer. Bat be was 10 possession
under kalamsus title and that hers was the only
recorded title His whole plea was that be
never knew or recognized Meek as having any
title, and if that was the fact be could not give
Meek any notice OF the nature of his holding
any more than any person claimiog to hold 10
I fee simple. gives notice to any particular person
I Of bis so holding. His whole clam was that he
never had eCterei 10 subservieaey to Meek.
Ga the part OF the defendants it was claimed
that he bad Deed from Kslsmaa dated 10th Of
February 1850 in favor of Captain Meek and
that Oops bad been placed IN possession there
BY Captain John Meek.
Evidence was introduced on both sides on
the side OF the plaintiff to show that be was put
I in possession by Kalamau and that be had co.,
tinued to hold possession he alleged on the