The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1879-08-30

We have nothing TO say about executions so
taken ont which may have been issued by virtue of
the 1929 section, since oar record does not show
whether property levied upon or sought TO be
levied upon was within the district of the Magis-
trate, giving the Judgment, but we may call atten-
ton to the course prescribed by our statutes. The
District or Police Court issues its writ OF execu-
ton upon ITS Judgment. which is to be levied upon
personal property If there be sufficient of it. and
If not. then (f the transcript have been duly dock
etedl on the real property of defendant within the
district but II The Judgment is not then satisfied,
section 1929 OF the CivaI Code provides that npon
the return of the writ. and procuring a certified
copy OF the judgment and execution in the Court
below, TO be dockeied in the office OF the Clerk of
the Supreme Court. the plaintiff NAV sue out a
writ of execution. which shall be available against
the property of the plaintiff wherever situated
within the Kingdom.
We may iuther remark that the circumstances
of this case forcibly illustrate the necessity of such
dOcketing, as the law requires. Almost all trace
OF record OF the proceedings in the District Court
was lost. Al frst. it was said that the Justices
record-book was lost or DESTROYED, Il had not
passed TO the successor In Office. aud had not been
seen for years but at a late stage of the trial it
was produced. and an obscure entry was found
which was taken to be the entry Of this Judgment.
The writ and return Of the sheriff are not in exist
ence. And futher, as il has been said above, the
deed OF the sheriff had been lost and never recorded.
There is evidence TO show that Mr. Lindsey
when he drew the conveyance from Kahiamoe to
himself was cognizant of the previous sale by the
sheriff or constable, and was a purchaser affected
~ uOuSe' AHdt HOulu prevent nm from setting
up the non-record of the deed. but it would not
cure the defects of an illegal sale. If Kahiamoe's
land had not been legally levied upon and sold, the
title remained In Kahiamoe and Lindsey might
purchase from him Notwithstanding his knowledge
Of the form OF levy and sale.
There was an important objection made to the
validity of the sale. that the sherif's officer. who
made the sale was himself the purchaser. Nainos
both sold and bought the land. but perhaps, pro-
cured the sheriff to sign his deed.
Another objection was, that, at the sale, this
officer, conceiving that the wife of the defendant in
execution owned one third of bis land by her right
of dover, put up and sold only an undivided two
thirds of the piece.
1t will be remarked that few pretended titles
are so infrm as the one based on this sale, with
nearly all its record lost. and what is established
by testimony showing such Irregularities. But
with our view of the main point in the ease, it will
be unnecessary to consider others.
The exceptions are sustained and the finding for
the Defendant is set aside, and Judgment is given
TO the plaintiff.
R. F. Bickerton for defendant, E. Preston and
Cecil Brown for plaintiff. CHAs. C.. HARRIS,
LAWRENCE MCCULLY.
l find myself unable to concur in the forego-
ing decision. A. FRANCIS JUDD.
Honolulu. Feb. 2stb, 1879.