The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1880-12-11
THE PACIFIC
GommertialAObertls
SATURDAY, DECEMBER IL, 1880.
Supreme Court, October Term, 1880.
r. K~EELIKoLANI VS.. LoNoyAHISE EFT. AL.
Harris c. j., Judd md McCuHy J. J.
OPINION of the Court by Harris C.

OPINION of the Court by Harris G. J.
The complaint in this case sets forth that the
defendants have taken into their possession, the
Ahupuaa of Kahanui on Molokai unlawfully and
the plaintiff claims the same by right of inherit
ance. 1t was tried before a native jury at the
July Term Of the Supreme Court holden at Homo
lulu, who returned a verdict for the defendant.
The plaintiff exhibits Royal Patent 27O9,
which grants to L. Haalelea certain parcels OF
land described by survey situate in the Ahupuaa
of Kahanui and comprising 1883 acres, and
Royal Patent No. 1924, based on Land Commits
sion Award No. 1855 to Kaluaokamano of GER
tain other parcels of land in the same Ahupuaa,
surveyed and containing 1923 acres.
1t was made to appear at the trial that hamo-
kuholohewa was the widow of the original
patentee and they having no children, she was
entitled, on the decease of her husband, to one
half of his estate and decided her portion of the
kula land of this Ahupuaa to the late Levi Haa-
lelea. Haalelea's administrator sold the same to
his late Majesty Kamehameha V. whose heir at
law is the plaintiff. The defendant at the trial
disclaImed any title or right of possession to the
premises set forth in the complaint excepting one
undivided half of the premises set forth and de-
scribed in Royal Patent, 1924, to which said
half he set up a title, by the reason of a deed
from the father of the original patentee, who by
our law was heir to one half of the land and by
an agreement for partition with the father of
Kamokuholobewa dated 1lth of June 1874, the
said father having become heir to his daughter
Kamokuholohewa. The deed from the father of
the patentee to this defendant is dated 9th of De-
cember 1865. The deed from ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
to Levi Haalelea is dated 9th of March 1855,
and it contains the following expression convey
ing = Ka alma kula a pau o Kahanui, Ahupuaa
Ma Molokai, ma ko maua kuleana mahele hoi. -
1t must be remembered that the whole deed is
in Hawaiian and was before a Hawaiian jury.
The bill of exceptions alleges that the court in
afrnofaH tho iuru that the 6aad from KamOknhO-
lohewa referred to above would only give a share
and not the whole Of the land, for it purports to
convey only a share obtained by a partition with
ONE one else.
The counsel for the plaintiff contends that it
may have been that Kamokuholobewa took the
whole of this piece of land for her share.
III it were so, 1t rested on the plaintiff to show
it, since it is the duty of the plaintiff to make
out her title.
But such a construction, as is commended for
by the plaintiff, is manifestly impossible, because
by all the papers in the case, no partition had
been made previous to the deed to Haalelea,
which IS the foundation of the plaintiffs title.
This deed is dated in March 1855, and the agree
ment of the defendant for a partition with the
heir OF Observation-Disclosures did not take place till
the 1lth of June 1874.
In this view, the only other construction of the
Hawaiian sentence would be, when rendered into
English, We sell the entire kula of the Ahupuaa
of KahanuI on Molokai, according to our right
to a share therein that is 20 say that we sell
our share in the kula of Kahanui.
This construction, which in our opinion is the
most accurate, would be no more favorable to the
plaintiff, than that given by the court. The deed
certainly conveys only a share in the land.
The exceptions therefore are overruled.
A. s. Hartwell for plaintiff; Castle & Hatch
for defendant.
CHAs. G. HARRIS.
a. FRANCIS JUDD.
LAWRENCE McCULLY.
Honolulu, October %, 1880.