The Hawaiian gazette., 1882-07-26
3amaiialt Gazette.
WEDNESDAY, JULY %, 1850.
Supreme Court of the Hawaiian Islands
In Probate.
IS RI rs1ATE or ". l. MorHoSUA DEcEAsED
Bgore he Ciisf JHsiies

Before he Chi.f justice.
The late " L. Moehonua died on the 9Th 0
December A. D. 1875. His property beini
considerably encountered, the administrato
was obliged to sell a large portion Of the estat
10 order to pay the debts, and it was not unit
March 1852, that the accounts were presented
to the court for approval and for distribution
Of the estate remaining.
At Tic hearing the following persons ap-
reared ne claimants. G. ". heaweamahi anC
lis sister Alapai represented by Kamika hei
husbaud) who claims to be cousins Of Moeho
nua Is children Of Ialua (k.), and Keohouli
w. I4lua being the brother Of Nnpua, the
mother Of decedent. This is admitted 10 b,
true by an the claimants.
Tho claimant Moepali, who also calls him.
self ". L. B. Moehonua, claims TO be :
second cousin Of decedeni, as being the
.raidsnn OF Kahaokamoku a brother Of Napua
Noehouua's mother.
This claim ID also not disputed. Kekuaihe
t.g) who claims to he a cousin Of decedeni, as
tCirz tho son Of KaikuHhine who was the
si-tcr II KeawComali, Noehonua's father
This claim is disputed.
His Majesty Kalakaua who claims the
estate as being q nephew Of decedent, the
claim being that His Majesiy's maternal
grandfather Aikanaka and not Keaweamahi
WIS the father Of Moohouua. This is also
disputed.
Muehunua left widow named Kapeka who
afterwards married Keaweamahi the first
above mentioned claimant, and died in 1881
lsasinz - her heirs at law, her husband and
KaaiIau, Kenhnkii, Kaepa and Koma her
. hroihers and Kamakana, Kukuilau sisters and
. Nua ueice and Lono nephew, children Of a
deceased sister named Kealoha.
D.. IL. e Il r
iI0uua descends according to our statute TO
he husband and heirs of Rapeka tho widow.
= G. one-quaTter Of the whole estate to G. W.
Keaweamahi as her husband and l-2s each to
Kaaiisu, Koohokii, Kaepa aud Komo, Kama
aua, kukuiau, and l-5sth each TO Nua and
Lnno
take up hrst the claim OF His Majesty as
The alleged relationship Of nephew will, If
sustained, take to the exclusion of cousins
G claim is, in substance, that Napua, who
was The woman with whom Keaweamahi
mutually consorted and this Kane OF
husband Of hers, were "Kahuas or family
retainers Of the High Chief Aikanaka. That
on one occasion, the chiefs and people being
engaged 10 cutting sandal-wood in the noun
inius in the northern portion Of this island,
tls2-25) Ail,analla Cohsbited with Napua
and The issue Of this was Moehouua the de-
cedeut His name (MOehouua) meant Sleep
ing Oh the ground from the circumstance Of
Aikauska sleeping on the ground at the time
Of the saudle wood cutting That certain
articel were given by Aika1aka as tokens Of
his acknowledgement that the child was his
There are contradictions in the testimony as
20 what these articles were, one witness
Kawaiiilii says they were malo "a mans
iUin cloth, two lei palaoa Chair necklaces
hon Lot
"Nahulum and the other " Kooai,' and also
"LeomauO' (au instrument made Of sharks
teeth to be worn on the hand as an offensive
weapuu). Another witness (Manukahunaaiole)
says the tokens were malo, large kahili,
lblack in color and Leiomano." Ksaua.
loa says the kahili was a white one HAWAII
iiIii assumed, in her examination before the
late Chief Justice Harris in 1850, too indentlfy
the two necklaces and the Leiomano,' when
produced hv claimant Kaawaloa says tho
" LeiOmauo was buried with Kaaua the
servant Who had charge Of them, and that
the EaliIi was put in the tomb wnen MOcho-
nUa died Members Of the household say this
kohili was one Moehonua bought.
None Of the witnesses examined before me
speak Of any lei palaoa OF necklace, and none
Of the witnesses examined IN $50 speak Of a
kahii as one Of the tokens.
There are alec contradictions as 10 when
and where these tokens were given -Keliio-
EaLekili (w) in 1850 says Aikanaka gave
them the necklaces 10 Kaaua at Kaawaloa,
Koua Hawaii, this must have been after the
birth of Muehonus, for he was born at Moku-
lgial Oahn, as this witness says: and yet this
witness says she saw AikaEaka give the malo
aui necklace TO Kaaua, aud at another part
OF her teslimony.ste says the malo was given |
sl4 limo e he o,Ia1.fFofso,,
Another witness, Kaua, says Aikanaka |
told her that he gave the tokens 70 Napua to 1
signify that if she bore o child It would be /
his. indicating that the tokens were given |
lolure tae birth Of Moehonua
But if it be conceded that tho proofs are |
reasonably clear that Aikanaka did have 1
IH;erCourse with Napua and certain tokens /
were Deposited either then or at the birth, |
ibis can mean no more than 70 indicate his /
lAikanaka's) 5slit that he was the father of /
}le child. L was proved that this woman |
was Bui iabued and kept separate after her |
meeting with Aikanaka. Ii was also in |
proof that she continued TO live with her |
husband and though Aikanaka may have
thought that MoohOnua was his child, there is
10 certainty that he wac
The policy Of the law at present is in favor
OF legitimacy and the rule exists that tho
presumption is IN favor Of the legitimacy of
offspring born in wedlock even though
adultery may be proven. think This same
rule must be held to apply 10 tho times in
,lls country before Christian marriage vas IN
.raduced. do not understand that there
ever was IN these Islands system which was
@.-r17g more than mere promiscuous and
.ndlscrlnnnale intercourse. between the sexes.
That pulygamy Existed among the chiefs is n
Of hfnH4r-vs g4nH Sc
This I'D one Of lie cases in the matter Of the
estate Of Kanaina duly Term. ls7s). But
while a man might have more than one woman
conserving with him, there was certain degree
b! permanency IN this relation and SO a
woman was commonly known as the "waihini"
1r wife OF certain man and it by no means
fellows that the offspring born after chance
meeting Of man with woman, the man not
being the kane or husband of the woman.
would OF could be considered as the offspring
II that casual connection, Moehonua was moi
considered as chief OF any thing like the
-uuk OF Aikanaka.
Tie legend Of " Uni or Lioa is referred
% 10y claimants counsel as q parallel case.
But here Uni presented the tokens (Which
lad been deposited with his mother Akahi-
,moainoa) TO his puiativo father Liloa who
7ls King Of Hawaii, and secured bis full and
unNlcte Reorganization as his son. These
we're personal characteristics Of Uni that left
10 doubt q the minds Of any that he was the
on Of Lilo6 aud tho public proclamation was
quivaleut TO asa adoption OF Uni as his son.
,bis element doesnot exist in the case before
s for The tokens were not presented by Moe. !
onua 70 Aikauaks, noE>was his recognition
ecurod in fact, there is N proof that Moeho-
pa was aware Of the existefiSe Of the tokens.
To adopt The view Of tho clai,<ants' counsel
ould throw the inheritance Of native Ha-
'aiians into inextricable confusion.
Every. witness who was questiouetS upon
lis point says that the "kane" Of Napua
as Keawcamahi. From this Keawcamahi, :
inherited, as his son and heir, the Z
.rge land Of Pulehunui, 10 Maui, tho use Of :
hich he enjoyed for many years and which
ss sold TO pay the debts Of this estate
[ feel obliged TO hold that Moohonua was
% The legitimate sou Of Aikanaka, therefore :,
ie claimant is not entitled to inherit this u
state
The claim Of kukaihc is next 10 be con-
derej. Not many witnesses were offered in :
ippou Of bis claim, but think those that
ere examined are entitled 10 credencc.
They say that Kaihuahine (k) was 4
othef Of keawoamahi and by Kahiko had
Is claimant This branch Of the family
scd az Hilo and the fact that witnesses who i
-ai M Knua md an 0ahu never heard If