The Hawaiian gazette., 1883-04-25

sThiz l. biII II equity, zeItia- forth that o1
the 18th March ISj+JheBoard CT Commissioners
Go Qqist Land Titles awarded to k1Iaeukelz1i
and bis heirs certain pieces CT Iald situated IN
Eamaksia- II HGuolgIu, By Award Nc 61fj,
part L thar On the 9Th June 1850 a Royal Pa
TENT, No. I5s5 vas issued f5r the said lands to
Eal7eqszz1i his heirs and gus- Lnat az
some time unknown % the plaintiff, but beiisv-
81 BIZ him 10 be On or after tbs said 6th Of
June. ISIS, Royal Patent vas Issued 70 4
person believed By Iks plIiltif IL BE cue Ea-
iaIzini now deceased for the said lands, pGr-
porting 10 be On the sane award, but which
through fraud. accident 90, mistake, granted
tlese lands which had been previously granted
O. E1l1eclzzls1i bis heirs and assi-usJ % Ealae-
1kEl5si for kalatni- The plaintiff believes
that the last mentioned Patent WIS obtained
bF Ealasiui without right through false or
mistaken rsprszsutatiGEs. as Ealakini vas
neither an herr ucr an assign Of kal8soksk1i-
The pl1nti1 is informed that there u % record
1f that Patent II the IaIeri1r of1ce=
Tie pl1iutII Is entitled Go this land By de-
scent from Ealasok1k1i deceased Intestats-
g but that the dsfend1nts ara IN possession Of
tie sane, Ginning through Ealakini b virtue
lf the SAID last uIenri1ned Royal Pafeut, and
refuse 20 surrender possession % bin" etc
The bill prays that this Patent Ray be can
called and defendauts euiained az1Inst using Il
Is EVIDENCE CT title u these lands
The dsfsnd5Hts Eahele and husband deu1r-
red 10 the bill, 90 the ground that tie fraHd
alleged IS not charged IN the ell against the
iefeudaatz- that the bill does not aiisge Wheth-
sr az not tue plaintiff has ever had possession
Il the premises and As there \ ~ allegation
that defendants are n possession Ct the land
claiming through Ealskinj BY virtue Ct the
Royal Patent attacked II lie hill- which Pa
tent vas issued On CO after June 9Th, SD this
amounts to an Alleg1ricE that defsudaztz have
teen N possession since June 9Th 1855, and
thzs the SfztHrs 1f LimiEriGrs has run u "a
vur Il fafendzaes- This lzeies of plaintiff ia
delaying to Hrilr his bill IS net ez-Hsed q *
planned ~ him IL the hiIl-
We think that she hiil ID ismHrrzhls- II
there vas a distinct allegation that ias fefeud-
ants have been IN EudIspurEd possession of
the land ilr g years, and 10 disability q The
plaintiff = alleged o. aay szzase made for lat
Ting Lis bill befsre the Statute had ruu, Il i
clear, ca the zHthority of Eapf1Izui -. Es-
awsanaEI Haw- that SUCH a bill wauii BE-
deul4rr7his We HzGerstald plaintiffs euua-
seI = caucesIe this- bag be contends that he
has net zTerrei thzr dsfsud1ats have beea IN
possession Ct tbs lad siuce the PatsHt vas
issasd n ] -, and that possession q the Pa
tent 5 u1t equivalent u possession It the
land
We tank shat, taking the plaintiffs viez r
his hiiI. L = defeetiVs 10 lGE containing c1u-
pIzss rsc5tsi a. . the POSSESSION e .has Iard
s5ncz the Patent va issIei- 90 ~ o. apcrizc
the Ccart of ali the material hets 1f The eass.
Pa A. sr-s-7-- sr7e q 1lf-arff ,rsz ara IA No.
sessina q the l1ud ciaIlinz throlziz EalizIni
b virtae e The PItsut.7 n fsfzali u any
lvsrHlent n pesaessisn, since tie P1rzut va
isa1ais "a zag sther persau fh1u tie defead-
zltz, cs1 Teii r. taken - mean that their POS
session has been eantinz5Es sizce tie Patent
vas zTanfsi- L s quife TiEiia sns powsr Ct
The piaialih 90 make auticieHr aIIesafioas 4
hey exist sa taai the hiIi viii 'haw eqEirjss
% IL face
Dsn.zrFgE szsizsEel, wilh leave o zassall ar
lie 4 new nfil N lUel1E lays-
8 B. DE AID = r Bicksrsun So piaiariI. l
1ecd Bro1n aad T. u Hzseh far 5efsndanes.
HauaIaIu. April IIth- Isez