The Hawaiian gazette., 1883-01-17

ternal disease / was present and saw her
die lived with her great many years
she hsd 4 land tan iii called Aipulena IN
Alan0a Valley she had entered claim IN
LSnd COmm'n: she had two Ills in kalihl
called Mokauea and Niihau , she entered
claims for them the Ahupuaa OF halsu
papa on Molokai she had no personal
property but hel clothes: she had little
house lot in Lahaina, at Molokai W. L.
Moehonus was her husband ; she has no
brothers or sisters or parents Moehonua
Is her heir. and no one disputes the pro
perry with him there was a dispute with
Alexander Liholiho about two house lots
but Moehonua has relinQuished them !:
she made no VIII to my knowledge did
al her business but never heard OF her
having made any VIII.
- \ PaH- sworn says i knew haunuo-
hua she Is now dead she lived in Homo
lulu sometimes with the King she died
sometime in 1919; Moehonua Is her heir +;
have heard of no dispute to the proper
": l have never heard of her having
made any VIII. except by wor1 Of mouth !;
the property Is IS stated by the former
witness
+" No person appearing to oppose the ap-
plication the Court did order letters Of
administration to be issued to W l. Noe
honua- without fling Bonds.
e ~iSignedl HENRr RHoDES.
Clerk Sup. Court
Letters Of administration issued in
usual form
The petition was presented and consid-
cred February 18th. 1852
These papers are conclusive that he
then claimed as heir Of his wife
hapuu. the first witness IN Probate
Swears. that kaunuohua has no brothers
or sisters or parents. that -MOehonua Is
her heir and no one disputes the property
with him
This shows him TO have been then in
possession claiming Is heir.
By the agreed facts We are now bound
10 say that haunuOhua then did have a
sister living whose lneal descendant was
the plaintiffs gTantor. but the above proofs
show that MOehOnua disputed that fact
and claimed 10 h. owner Of the whole IN
his own right
The petition shows that Moehonua said
that hsunuohua on the day Of her death
made verbal VIII In his favor.
Prior TO tine enactment Of the organic
laws Of 1916 a verbal viii might b. made.
See estate Of l. H. kaniu 2nd Haw'n R.
p - 81
In that case a verl,al VIII was established
IN favor Of his present Majesty kalakaua-
But We think that when kaunuohua
died q verbal viii WAS no longer valid
See Stat Laws 1916 PIP. 249-51 See. l.
Laws 1877 p s. SEC ?.
II + however evident that when Moeh0-
H.
possession openly claiming To b. heir OF
kaunuohua and 10 be entitled 10 the pro
ps-Ity in dispute. a. owner against all the
world This claim and the petition and
proofs then made. characterize and qualify
his acceptance Of letters Of administration.
a-ld show that he Was not trustee Tor the
plaintiffs. or their gTantOr and that he
never acknowledged the existence Of any
Sueh relation
The probate Proceedings arr matter Of
record. The sister of kaunuohua, who
wa then living in Honolulu and under
no disability. must be presumed TO have
had notice Of those proceedings and Of
MOehonr1s's claim to the title After
trustee denies a trust his possession !
deemed adver>e-
See Wsshburn on Real Property Vol ?
.. 4S3. Perry on Trusts Vol 2, See Sj4-
MoehOnua no; only denied the trust he
never admitted IL and II may b. properly
inferred that he took the administration
because he believed II would and his claim
Of title d sole heir and II was his assertion
of It In Court. He expressly denied the
title Of al other heirs An administration
- taken cannot possibly be construed into
an admission Of others rights
A possession adversely commenced :
presumed 10 continue adverse. 50 long a.
maintained Bogardus " Trinity Church
/ Sand Ch. ps- 6S3. 733- Gr@enleafs' Ey.
See IL
When the administration was granted.
the possession Of Moehonus was adverse
This condition continued unless taking
administration was an abandonment Of
the character Of the possession and We
think we have shown that It was not See
Jackson vs Sears. 10 John R. p 4:S5
The circumstance that the tltie claimed
was void or.oommenced in fraud Of thelaw
dos not detract from adverse possession
commenced under It See BOgandus "
Trinity Church. 4 Sand Ch- R. P. 139
Hsrpending v. The Reformed Protestant
Dutch Church. Is Peters R. 455.
Even though Moehonua claimed under
8 verbal VII or claimed Is her without
any mason for II, his claim was none the
les adverse on that account
For these reasons we hold that an ad
verse possession Of thirty years is made
0He and that the defence of the Statute
Of limitation is established
Let Judgment absolute for the defend
ants be entered with costs
Hon. Z. Preston and F. NJ Hatch for
plaintiffs. J. NJ Davidson foy defendants
II.-s1--ir Is-v.sr-r I9rh 1872