The Hawaiian gazette., 1884-01-16
Supreme Court of the Hawaiian Islands
In Equity.--Special Term, Dec. 20, 1883.
KALAEoKEKoI vs.. KAHELE, Ell Al.

B,fors Jadd, C.. j., Wccmiy and .irsta,J.J
OPINION OF THE CoURr, BY MCCULLY, J.
On appeal from The decision of tho Chan
cellor dismissing the Bill.
The Bill sets forth that a Land Commission
Award was made March 25th, 1854, to Kalaeo-
kekoi (ancestor Of the PLAINTIFF and his heirs
for certain parcels Of land at Kamakela in
Honolulu that on the 9th of June, 1855,
Royal Patent for the said awarded lands was
issued 10 KalaeOkekoi, his heirs aud assigns
that at some time unknown to the plaintiff,
but believed by him TO be on or after the said
9th OF June, 1865, Royal Patert for the same
lands was issued to a person believed by the
plaintiff to be one Kalakini now deceased to
"Kalaeokekoi for Kalakini.' That the plain
tiff believes that the last mentioned Patent
was obtained by Kalakini without right
through fraud. That the plaintiff is entitled
TO this land by descent from KalaeokekOi LIST
deceased interstate but that the defendants are
in possession, claiming through the said Kala-
KIM by virtue Of the last mentioned Royal
Patent And by amendment after demurrer,
that his mother, heir at law Of kalaeokekoi
lst. was IL possession from his death to her
own death in 500. And that while he knew
Of the wrongful possession Of the defendant,
he was then and for long time afterwards too
poor to bring suit The Bill prays that the
second mentioned Royal Patent may be sur
rendered, ordered 10 be cancelled by the Court
and that defendants be CnjOined from using the
same as defense in actions 70 recover the
said land.
The answer denies on information and be-
lief that Patent was issued to kalaeokekoi
and his heirs but AYERS that it was issued TO
Kalaeokekoi for kalakini-denies fraud or mis-
take and AYERS that at the date Of the issue
thereof, Kalakini was in possession and has
held by herself and her heirs, the defend
ants, till now.
Bv he Court.
The subject matter of the Bill is the Royal
Patent which it is prayed be cancelled, and to
that instrument in comparison with the re-
cord in the Land Office and the copy from that
record produced by petitioner, we have given
much examination. The course Of business
in The Land Office has been to make a copy in
folio-register Of each Royal Patent before
delivery. The one original document is the
Patent, signed by the King, countersigned by
the Minister and impressed with the great
Seal. A certified copy from the register can
be obtained by any person on payment Of the
prescribed fee.
The portions Of the two Patents which it is
necessary 10 comment on are as follows The
words in italics are erased from the register
and the words which follow in brackets have
been written over the erasures, the petitioners
copy conforming to the altered register.
No. 1855, Royal Patent upon confirmation
Of the Land Commission. Whereas the Board
of Commissioners to Quiet Land Titles have by
their decision awarded unto Kalaeokekoi for
EalaIisi for his heirs Land claim G2i5, No.
I, an estate of freehold less than allOdial, in
and TO the land hereinafter described aud
whereas, the said (the words "the said" Cross
ed over but not erased in the register, and are
omitted in the petitioners copy Kalakini has
committed the title as awarded for fee SIM
pie title, by the payment Of the sum Of three
hundred and forty dollars into the Treasury.
Therefore, Kamehameha, King, etc, etc, has
this day granted and given absolutely, in fee
simple unto Kalaeokekoi for hdlaG7Ji Ibis
heirsl all that certain piece of land etc. To
have and TO hold the above granted land IN
fee simple unto the said Kalaeokeko for Kald-
kiHi his heirs her heirs and assigns forever,
etc.
Both instruments are dated June 9th 1855.
The original patent before us proves itself.
The court takes Judicial notice Of the sigma
ture Of the then King, Kamehamoha ", and
Of the Kuhina Nui, Victoria X. Kamamalu,
countersigning it, as well as Of The Seal af-
fixed. Two members of the court have also
personal knowledge Of these signatures,
as well as of the handwriting of the then Chief
Clerk Of the Interior Department, by whom
the patent is written. Ii is unquestiOnaby
the authentic original patent issued Oh the 9Th
Of June 1855. There is no proof whatever TO
support the allegation that I'm original Royal
Patent was issued to "Kalaeokekoi for his
heirs" in the form of the copy which the
petitioner presents, on the 9th Of June 1855
or at any subsequent day-and all the in
ferences from the regular course Of business
in the Land Office are that there were not two
original patents signed by the King and coun-
tersigned by the Minister, issued the same
day or on different days to different parties
for the same piece of land.
The hypothesis on which this bill is brought
and sought to be maintained, therefore fails
at its initial point.
1t is next claimed in argument that
this genuine patent was issued by fraud
or mistake, and that subsequently, the mis-
take having been discovered the register
was amended to correspond with what the
patent should haveibeen made. The petitioner
wholly fails to show any proof or probabilities
in support Of this surmise. On the other hand
AAN AuNAr All NNlAtnlNlN WIN AlUtlNA ~ liNAA-
esis, namely that at some time after the issue
Of the patent the register was fraudulently
altered to enable the petitioner to present such
a certified copy as he now bases his claim
upon. Two things defeat the attempt First
the existence Of the original aud authentic pa
tent. The parties to the scheme may have
reckUned on the loss Of this instrument, as
many other patents have been lost, destroyed
by fire, or other casually. The instrument
before us is worn by handling into pieces, but
no part of it is obliteraied. 1t shows what
was granted, and what was once recorded in
the records Of the Land Office. Secondly, the
blUuders and Inconsistencies in the alterations.
The altered instrument is made 10 read as 4
grant to ''Kalaeokekoi for his heirs instead Of
TO Kalaeokekoi and his heirs, which is avcrred |
in the bill, and which would have been the |
proper grant if 1t had been to kalaeokekoi |
The habendum has the double blunder Of |
reading, "to the said Kalaeokekoi for his her |
heirs" 1t should be said that kalaeokekoi |
was man and Kalakini was woman, SO that /
in the original the pronoun her is used through
put, while the alterations TO =" his failed to
erase or change the last "her." And in the
,eginniDg Of the instrument there is the amaz-