The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1879-03-01
Supreme Court-January Term, 1879
Before HdTris. J, Jndd and MecElly, ~.
II COMFY - IANrr

Chief Justice Harris delivered the decision of
the Court, as follows:
This case was originally brought in the Police
and District Court of Honolulu to recover posses
sion of q piece of land under Article Nj OF the
Civil Code, entitled " OF Summary proceedings to
recover possession of land in certain cases = Sec
tons 939, $40.
The complaint filed in this case. as it appears
by the summons is that I" defendant is ummoned
to answer in a plea within the plaintiff declares
and says that the defendant is in possession of the
land and tenements of the plaintiff situate in Nuu-
anu Valley, District of Honolulu, Island Of Oahu,
known and described in a certain Land Com
mission Award No. 6325, by the name of Niolopa,
which the said defendant holds unlawfully and
against the right of the plaintiff, who has title to
the said land and the right of present possession
thereof. Wherefore the plaintiff asks for judgment
giving him possession of the said land
AT the hearing before The District Court, the
defendant d" denies that he is, or ever has been the.
lessee of the said plaintiff, or that the relation OF
landlord and tenant ever existed between the
plaintiff and himself, and claims that he is entitled
to a life estate in the land claimed by the plaintiff.
and that his right can only be tried before a jury
of the country, wherefore and inasmuch us no
tenancy is alleged in the plaintiffs complaint, he
moves that this action be dismissed with costs"
The magistrate oyerruled the motion to dismiss,
and decided to go into the evidence of the case
saying that if such a plea must be taken as GUST
ing him of his jurisdiction, the statute would be
rendered nugatory, and the landlord be deprived
of his remedy, whereupon the defendant seems to
have declined TO go into his defence and Judgment
was rendered against him pro forma.' From this
judgment defendant appealed, came on for hear
ing on the 9th of January, and on the 18th. JUS
tice Judd delivered the opinion OF the Court
reversing the Judgment below. The plaintiff ask
ed for a re-hearing, which was granted, and we
have thought it advisable to more fully express
the views which We entertain.
The statutes applying to the case are as follows.
Section 939, Civil Code as amended, page Ia
session laws 1864 " whenever any lessee or
tenant of any lands or tenements. or any person
holding under such lessee or tenant shall hold
possession of such lands OF tenements without
right after the determination of such tenancy,
either by ef1ux of time or BY reason of any forfeit
ure, under the conditions or covenants in any
such lease or, if q tenant by parole, by o notice
to quit of at least ten days, the person entitled to
such premises may be restored to the possession
thereof in manner hereinafter provided
Section $40. 1.-THE person entitled to the pos
session of the premises may apply to any police or
district justice for a writ, in the form used for an
original summons in common civil actions before
such justices, in which the defendant shall be sum-
moned to answer the complaint of the plaintiff, for
that the defendant is in the possession of the lands
or tenements in question, describing them, which
he holds unlawfully. and against the right of the
plaintiff, and no other declaration shall be recog-
nized."
1t is commended by the plaintiffs counsel that he
was under no necessity of setting forth in his COM
plant that the defendant in this case was a tenant
of the plaintiffs, or, in what manner the defend
ant holds under the plaintiff, because the statute
(940 sectiOn) enacts that the defendant shall be
summoned to answer the complaint of the plaintiff.
for that the defendant is in possession OF the lands
or describing them, which he holds I'M
lawfully, and against the right of the plaintiff. and
no other declaration shall be recognized :" and
therefore it is argued that a simple declaration of
illegal holding, without averring leasehold or
tenancy, is not only all that is required, but a far
Their declaration is not to be recognized.
But the whole gist of the complaint consists in
the fact, that the defendant entered into the pre-
misses in some way as a tenant.
The District magistrates have no right to try the |
titles in land. and only acquire a right in this case,
if it is acquired at all. by reason of tenancy. The
complaint in this instance differs, in no respect,
from that used in an ordinary action of ejectment, |
and the magistrate on the face of it can have no
Jurisdiction the lines quoted by plaintiffs cOun-
sci apply to the whole enactment and are not to
be taken as standing alone.
Now an ordinary summons in a common civil
process spoken of in the same section above, sets
forth the cause of action and describes it with
sufficient PARTICULARLY to apprise the magistrate of
his jurisdiction and to apprise the defendant of
what he has got to defend. 1t is therefore clear
that the declaration in this case was not sufficient
to give jurisdiction to the wdgistrate, and on that
ground the complaint Should have been dismissed.
we holI mat 1T is necessary to set forth in the
complaint, the circumstances of the tenancy how
it was entered into whether by lease or parole.
wheE it terminated, and how whether by efiux
of time or by notice to quit, and this last is q COM
plete illustration, for the tenant by parole must
have had notice to quit of at least ten days, or, the
will have no jurisdiction.
In the case of Kaaihue VS.. Crabbe, Sd Hawaiian
Reports 776, wherein this same statute was con-
sidered, it is said that the police and District
Court has jurisdiction " only where the relation of
and tenant confessedly exists"
We think that a denial of tenancy, especially il
in writing as in this case, even where the tenancy
is we'll set forth in the complaint. and a setting
of another title, hostile to the plaintiffs title,
the magistrate becomes advised that the
claims adversely to the plaintiffs. and
under him, is sufficient to take it out of the
jurisdiction of District magistrates under these
statutes and it seems to us that if after such a
and setting up of an adverse title on
The part of the defendant, the magistrate could go
on and inquire whether his title is good, he would
be passing upon the defendants title, and stretch
ng the authority of the law greatly beyond what
vas contemplated and that the consequences of
q holding would be more likely to lead to
confusion and a usurpation of authority on the
Of the magistrate, than the holding as at pre-
is likely to render the statute nugatory and
lepriVe the landlords of their remedy. If dis
lonest pleas should be set up by defendants, I'M
loubtedly egectual means will be found to OBJ
late the effects OF such dishonesty. ,
AS we have said before, the decision of the c
'olice and District magistrate is reversed. 4
j. NJ. Davidson for plaintiff, A. S. Hartwell for e
efendant. /
Honolulu, Feb. l, 1879. 5