The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1878-09-14
HAsRls, {. J.; JUDD AND McCrLLr, j.
On appeal from MeCllly, j.

or grandchild, parent. brother or sister. His
estate being administered upon by W. c. Parke,
Esq, Marshal, the petitioners applied 10 Mr..
Justice McCully, under the Act OF 1874, being
an Act to quiet title in lands claimed By in
heritance, - for q decree establishing themselves
as entitled to the estate, as being the next of kin
to the deceased. Under the notices required 10
be given, nine sets of claimants made their ap-
pearance, and evidence upon these claims was
taken at great length.
w. :. Pahukula's claim as being the nephew
of c.. Kanaina, and thus excluding all others, was
determined first by the lower Court, and, upon
appeal, the judgment dismissing his claim was
affirmed.
Mr.. Justice McCully came to a final judgment
dismissing all the claims IN June last, and the
following parties alone appealed to the full
Court
/. The petitioners, by Mr.. Brown.
,. Haalilio, Haalelea and Kahuakaiola, by Mr..
Dole
3. Pahau, by Mr.. Preston.
4. Kaaua, by Mr.. Mahelona.
). Kekukahiko and others, by Holokahiki; and
o. kilinahe, who appealed from the order rul-
ing out his appearance as being too late. The
full Court admitted Kilinahe as u party. the
afhdavits being satisfactory, and heard testimony
upon his case and the additional testimony
offered by the other appellants.
All parties agree that Ella * was the father
and kauwa (w.) the mother of c. Kanaina, and
that Kauwa's mother was Moana (w.) and her
father, Newfoundland (k.)
The petitioners, who are His Majesty and his
two sisters, being the surviving children of the
late High Chieiess A. Keohokalole, claim that
she was the daughter of Kamai (w.), who was
the daughter of Kahele * }, who was brother of
Kauwa wv J., the mother of Kanaina.
The petitioners offered no new testimony to
strengthen their case before this Court, and we
are of the opinion. having duly weighed and con-
sidered that taken in the Court below, that they
have failed to prove their case.
Kukahiko and others claim that kauwa had
a sister, Kaneikolia (w.), who was also called
" Kanwamakapaa > (w.) and that she, by Ka-
waahoeOle (k.), had Nakoolaniohaka (w.), who,
by Lonoaea (k. } had Kaupae (w.), kaeakamahu
(w.), Kahonu (k.), Kukahiko (k.), and Kama
kamohalia (k.) Mrs. Pamahoa Napoleon, aged
about As, the daughter of Kaupae WV, deceased,
says that this genealOgy was given her by her
grandmother.
This statement, and the testimony of one more
witness, is all that is offered in addition in this
Court and we find, on an examination OF the
testimony taken in the Court below, that the
essential fact that Kaneikolia (w.) was the sister
OF Kauwa, the mother of K%anaina, is not proved,
although there undoubtedly was a Kauwa there
who had a sister Of this name, and therefore dis
miss this claim.
L. Haalelea (k.), Kahuakaiola (k.), and A.
w. Haalilio claim that Moana, the grandmother
of Kanaina, to whom their witness gives the
Dduo Vi INK WV, udu, ny hcdReOpdld kk.) one
Keholo (k.), who had, by Piipii (w.), Kanuha,
the well-known Deputy-Governor of Hawaii
under Kuakini. The facts thus far are substan-
tiated by the books of genealogy of the family of
the d~ecedent, which are filed in this case.
1t is further claimed, and is abundantly proved,
that this Keholo (k.) had another woman with
whom he consorted, Kamakaiwa by name, who
was given him by his wife Piipii, and who was
her HoOpuHd.
This connection with Kamakaiwa was kept up
by Keholo as he visited Puma on his collecting
tours during the lifetime of Piipii, and by her he
had Namuo (w.) and Kahuakaiola (k) who
were recognised by kehOlo as his children, and
by Kanuha as his sister and brother.
This Namuo (w.), by Kanakaole (k.), had
issue the three claimants, Haalelea, Kahuakaiola
I'd and Haalilio.
Mr.. Justice McCully was unwilling to hold
that the offspring of such q union as Keholo' 3
with Kamakaiwa (w.) would take by descent
from Keholo. The testimony was much strength
ened on appeal by proofs of the recognition by
Keholo of Kamakaiwa's children as his own, and
by testimony of aged Hawaiians that in ancient
times it was common for a chief to have more
than one wife, and there were no distinctions
made in favor of the children of the first wife.
This time of which the witnesses speak was ante
cior to the introduction of Christianity into this
Kingdom, before the edict Of Kaahumanu 1892
that a man should have but one wife, ard that
the woman he continued to live with should be
Hlo WIG. IoCu pOIySdMJ WAC COmAuOus anu Il
chief had wives according to his fancy and his
ability to support and maintain them. This
being allowed by the customs of the Kingdom,
and the fact of this connection being proven to
have existed, it would not be right to deny to
the descendants of such a dnion their claim of
inheritance, us though what would be unlawful
now was unlawful then. 1t is unquestioned that
these clnimants are the grandsons of Keholo (k.)
the brother of Kauwa (w.), Charles Kanaina's
mother, and we hold that they stand in an
inheriting relation to the d~ecedent, being chill
dren of his cousin Namuo.
As to claim of kilinahe, the Court was much
impressed with his own testimony as to his gene
alogy, which he gave with the assurance and dig
nifty characteristic of a Hawaiian chief. He saws
that Moana ivy by Nohomualani tx had first
a daughter, ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS (w.), and then
Kauwa ; that Observation-Disclosures (w.) had, by
Kalaipuwaa (k.), a daughter, Maunakapu (w.),
who, by Paihewa (k.), had the claimant Kill
nahe. He brought other witnesses to substan-
tate these facts, and although the witnesses who
were examined before Judge McCully do not
speak of this person ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS as a
sister Of Kauwa, it must be remembered that
Kilinahe was not then admitted as a claimant,
and no questions were addressed to them on this
point and the fact, too, that Kilinahe being the
grandson of an older sister of Kauwa, and him
self being near Kanainais own age, would make
it less likely that this genealogy would be known
by many living witnesses. We are inclined to
believe the testimony OF hlllnahe, thus support
ed, and find his claim to be proven.
Pahau's (w.) claim has been conspicuous
throughout, and much testimony has been ad-
duced for and against her, and we find that Its
weight prcponderates in her favor. Her claim is
that Ella, who was not a chief, the father of Ka-
naina, was the son of Kapalaoa (w.) and Maka-
kaualii (k.); that this couple had children,
Kanemano (k.) LIST, Kaikailua (w)., Ella (k.),
and Lihiole (w.)
Kaikailua (w). by Keakaokalani (k.), had
Kanemano (k.) ID, and he, by Kepaalani (w.),
had Pahau (w.), the claimant. This woman was
born at Molokai, which island Naea had charge
of, and where Ella, his father, spent his last days.
Kaaua (k.) also claims through the father of
Kanaina. His genealogy is put forward as fol-
lows That Lihiole (w.), above mentioned as the
sister of Ella (k.), had, by Kalanihookoe (k.),
Ella (k.) ID, named after his uncle, and he, by
kapuonohi (w.), had kaaua, the claimant, who
was born at Kanaina's premises in Honolulu.
The claim of this man did not seem to be re-
sisted very strongly before Judge McCully. On
his being produced before the Court, he, though
of feeble Intellect, gave his own estImoDy as to