The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1883-01-06
SUPREME COURT.
O TERM.
before the Chief Justice and two Associates
Justices.)

The evidence in the bill of exceptions
shows that Kea, in whose name the award
was made and afterwards a patent issued
thereon, died in 1913 or 1919; that the plain
tiff is his heir-at-law; that the widow of
Kea. Kahawaiu, continued to reside on the
land or To cultivate it, and died in 1871. her
brother Kaiama living with her at the time
of her death. The defendant is his son, who
has been aud is now in possession of the
lands. He defends by adverse possession.
The instructions excepted to, are Il.
THAT if the jury believed from the evidence
that Kahawalu was the widow OF the
patentee Keu. and occupied the premises
in dispute without objection, the statute
did not run against the plaintiff until her
death in 18TH" 2nd-''That a title Ivy ad-
verse possession Wa only made out by
proof of exclusive possession as against all
the world" and 3rd-rile Court refused To
admit in evidence. am alleged lease, no
proof of its execution being made. The
defendant after verdict, took general ex-
ception to it rs being contrary to the law
and evidence.
Regardi & the last it also appears by the
report of the charge that the Court directed
the jury to consider the evidence as to the
possession being permissive or adverse, and
that there was evidence on which IL verdict
might be found for the plaintiff. The ex-
ceptions therefore to the verdict, as well as
the second exception i'm the charge must be
OYerruled.
The third exception ne q not be consid-
cred. There remains the question raised by
the first exception, whether the occupation
of the estate by the widow suspended the
operation of the Statute of Limitations until
her death.
BY the Statutes of 1915, p. 40, IA widow had
a right of dover in her husbands land, but
the statute does not in terms allow her pos
session of the estate. The law governing
the descent of property is that which is In
force at the time of the death of the an
c%estor, the rights of heirs being considered
as arising atethat time,
The statute of descent first enacted in
1850 and subsequent statutes have no retro
active effect upon the widows right and
possession.
In analogy to the common law, and the
decisions of other countries, we hold that a
widow cannot enter the land until her
dover is assigned, because before her as
signment it is not known what part she
shall have for her dover. She is not u ten
ant in common with the heir; her right
rests in action only.
The occupation of a widow, then, in 1849
before the statute of descent was passed was
not necessarily as doweress and might be
adverse to the heiress; and the question as
to her possession was adverse, or not, should
haye been left to the jury:
/ to, directed the jury, if they found that
> Kawalu was in ossession of the land as the
widower of Kea, to find that the Statute
y did not begin to run until her death. This
! was an error and we accordingly sustain
: the exception and order q new trial. w. II.
Castle, for plaintiff. r.. f. Bickerton, for
defendant.
JANUARY TERM, 1883.
before First Associate Justice McCully and
Jury.)
Rex VS. NainoeIua selling spirituous liquor,
without a license. Verdict, not guilty. Mr.. J
Russell, for defendant.
, Rex vs. Jim Grow having opium in posses.
sion. Verdict, guilty. Sentence reserved. Mr.
]. Russell for defendant.
WEDNESDAY, Jan. 3, 1882.
Rex VS.. nianu. Selling liquor without
license. Appeal from District Justice of Waia'
lua. Verdict not guilty.
The afternoon was occupied by the case o.
, Rex VS.. Keawe, charged with the larceny of $27O
: Verdict. guilty. Sentenced to - years i'm
= p~risonment.
BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JUDD.
e JANUARY B. 1888
+. THE HEEIA SUGAR PLANTATION co. VS.. KALAMAZOO
AND TEN OTHERS.
An appeal from the District Court Of Koolau
poko. The following 10 Il condemnation ol th,
e opinion Of the Court
The defendant. in this case are Iaborers con
tracted to work for John McKeaeue aud Jot,t
McKeague and Co., and have refused to work f0
= the plaintiffs on the ground that they are not thI
II the parties with whom the defendants contracted
A deed OF Conveyance dated Both June, 1882
was introduced IN evidence whereby JohI
McKeague sold to the lIeeia Sugar Plantation
Company, a corporation organization under th'
at OLdtc l SdiliOruiuB D. n ' III ~ pTOpeTLl
comprising the Heeia Plantation. in c1nsidera
e ton of the sum of one dollar, and for other gooC
N and valuable considerations which MIR. Nc
Keague says. was the instance to him ol 40. 00(
.e shares Of the Stock OF the Corporation
Section l. Chapter XII: of the Laws OF 1873 re
quires that there shall be fled In the Office or tin
= Department of the Interior. within twenty day
after commencing to do business in this Kingdom
II a designation of some person residing in th,
? principal place of business of the corporation il
" this Kingdom. upon whom process by uutl BRIT
or under any law OF this Kingdom may bi
e served. and Sectian 2 of this Act provides tina
every corporation failing TO Comply with the pro
visions Of the first section, shall be denied tn,
benefits OF the laws of this Kingdom Th'
= plaintiffs not having complied with this law, the,
are debarred from h~rlnging an action in thu
e Courts Of this Kingdom in their corporate capacity
r The plaintiffs, therefore, cannot maintain theil
O action, and are non suited. Mr.. Davidson f,r
q the plaintiffs; Mr.. Hatch for the defendants.
o JOHN McKEAoUE VS.. New HOLLAND.
An appeal from the District Court of Koolau,
poke.
The defendant contracted to labor for thu
! plaintiff for two years, dating from 25th Octo.
Der, 1879. According to the time of the oversee,
q nj the plnn'ation Moleoa. the defendant. worked
only Is m'Hthr aud Is days. fte defendant said
that lac had worked two days over the time con.
r tructed for.
o. His Honor read the decision in Halstead ys
Pnulo, which was similar to this case, and the
3 Court said that three years having ev-D1roI .eion
[ this contract was made, there the contract had
RI though not a strong one, lie burden of proof Is
been fulfilled = make out a clear case sbow'
upon the employ ana the amount of labor still
ing the absence much to expect that iIlit.rs,a
due. 1t is too eep an accurate account: lint III
workmen shall Esct that the plantations shall
Court does exp
do SO. Iehts should be made with the
Monthly settle DOCKS are made up each month
men, and If pass man no dis~agreements conId
and given to eac'un had not made out his casa
arise. The plain OF the Court, and it Air.
to the solisfactithe lower Court.
the judgment of'AY, January 4, 1888.
THURs9d guilty the previous dav wos
Jim Grow, fouA n"h'hs Imprisonment, and a
sentenced to sew
fine of 800. ~ hainoau fishing with giant
D. rr IL SunlY. SanfPnoad a. - 49,