The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1882-11-29
Supreme Court OF the Hawaiian Isinud..
In Banoo.- October Term 1882

@ssfH - W h'NANlA AtA ..I.'Nlh '. NNN Owl
certain premises in Honolulu, being o portion
Of Apana Of Royal Patent No. 1855, Teal
No. 1915, No. }. The case was tried az the
Jolly Term, $50, and ihc Jury rendered yer
DICT Tor the defendant under Instructions from
the Court. The aforementioned Royal paigul,
No. 1855, whom introduced in evidence. was
found TO contain the following words. viz
Whereas the Board of Commissioner 60 Quiet
Land Titles have, by their decision. awarded
unto kalaookeko, for Kalukini, IauI. Claim
No, 62ij, No. ! y etc. -" Aud, whereas. Che
said Kalakini has committed the titlcas award
81 for fee simple title BY the pavmau. OLE"
etc. Therefore, kamohumUhl M etc., has
this day granted mud given absolutely 81 tee
simple unto Kalaookokoi, for Kalakfui. aII that
certain piece Of land, etc, ctc., TO lgvo and DO
hold, otc., unto the said kaIaeokgl,ui, iuI IA
lanl, her heirs aid assigns forever The
original Award, No. G2IJ, No. , contained
these words, to wit. part ] This rs what
We now award to kalaoOkckoi and bis heirs "
Signed by the members OF the Land Commits.
sion. In the survey following, are these words.
" Description Of boundaries of live parts of the
land Of Kamakola, in the property of kalaun-
kokoi, for KalalIini.'
There was also put in evidence Award so.
Sgij, to kalacokekoi, 'uO kcaku, y OF %
piece OF land in Lahaim
The Court ruled. al hold that the original
Royal Patent produced, conveys the land de-
scribed in Award G2lj, No. /, and runs To-
Kalaeokekoi, for kalakiui; aud this makes the
heirs Of kalakiui the owners of tic lard 900
question" Whoroupuu the jury were instructed
70 return q verdict for defendant, which thcy
did; and which was duly accepted to aud OK
ceptious allowed
Tho plaintn is Tue younger ul the namu
Kafaant alTpi aud .Ivfutot La Ca
and the defendant claims the land through
kalakiui
II lie evident upon the face OF the papers Uu
hle that Kalaeokoko died after filing his claim
and before the Judgment of the Land Com
mission was made Otherwise the award
would not have run kuluoOkokoi for his
heirs"
The case OF Davis VS.. brewer Bird Hawaiian
Reports go settles tho law that a Royal Patent
not void on its face can only be set aside in
eIuity. The Court say " To Rule that ovory
Royal Patent issued to any person other than
tho one named in the award 10 UriHtu furiC
void as against such award would upset land
titles and make strange confusion "Tho
presumption, on the contrary, is, that the Pa
tent was issued to the legal holder of or to the
ono legally entitled 70 the award" 'It
10 not denied that Patent conveys Gully
legal title aud leaves the equities open, hut
we merely decide that Patent valid on it's
face 10 good in law and is the hest evidence of
title. and that the equities can only bercuuhud
ina Court af Equity and not by an action of
oieetment.' In that case the paintil claimed
under an award to himself and tho defendant
claimed under Royal Patent to himself for
the same land and based on tho same award,
where the government had undertaken 10 issue
the Patent to grantee Of tho original award.
The Court, ON page 2s2 Of the decision, rccug-
nlLed the principle that land Patent may be