Saturday press. [volume] (Honolulu, H.I.) 1880-1885, 1884-01-26
sonrtnrNn 10 tNrrsrrntrr.

manu- loI certain ldud situated al
kamakcla, IN Honolulu, which Eahanu
held by right Of purchase from Eliza.
beth kia, as heir at law TO Kalakini "a
woman) Here the pleadngs set forth
that Kalaeokekoi was the grandson OF
Kalacokekoi and son OF Auwae a.
1t was held by the plaintiff in this suit
that, although his ancestor, Kalaeoke
koi, had taken out a royal patent for
the land in question "for Kalakini wi
and her heirs he had nevertheless
held possession during his life time
adversely to Kalakini, and that such
adverse possession had continued in
his heirs sufficiently long to establish a
prescnptiye right thereto, he claiming
to be the sole surviving heir OF kalac-
okekoi. The evidence in this case was
conclusive against the claim OF adverse
possession for period of more than
twenty years, and the jury accordingly
found for the defendant (Kahanu.
Exceptions to the verdict were noted
by the plaintiffs counsel on the ground
that one OF the jurors was drunk, and
also that the defendant, after the yer
Dict had been rendered, had invited
the jurors to lunch at his expense.
These exceptions were argued at the
April term Of 1882, before Chief
Justice Judd, who thereupon ordered a
new trial. Again, at this term of the
court a verdict was given for the de
iendant (kahanu) Exceptions were
again made on certain law points, and
were argued before Chicf-Iustice Judd,
who this time dismissed them. An
appeal was then made to the full
bench, but with the same result This
case was heard in some form or an
other at every term Of the court during
the year 1882. 1t was supposed that
after so much litigation to no purpose
Gas far as the plaintiff was concerned
the case would be forever dropped and
the defended left secure in his title.
The parcel of land claimed in this suit
was but minute portion OF the whole
land, a title to which had been given
by royal patent and land commission
award, it having been variously distri-
butcd in lots to different purchasers.
The case at the time of trial was un-
derstood TO be but test case in
directly, involving the title to the whole
property, and no little anxiety was felt
at the time by the various purchasers
who held by conveyanccs from the
heirs of Kalakini and the supposed
final failure of the new claimant had
more firmly than ever impressed them
with a belief in the indeleasibility of
their own titles. Under such circum-
stances. and reposina in such comfort.
able belief. it is no wonder that they
should be little surprised to find
themselves all ioined as defendants in
an equity suit brought by the same
claimant to set aside the original royal
patent upon which they had relied as
the basis of their titles. Again the in
deiatigable Kalacokckoi comes forward
to claim in equity what had been
issuance of the original royal patent
under which the several defendants
held, is alleged by him as the oround
of action. He fearlessly calls attention
to the fact that there is yare,nce be
tween the original royal patent and the
original record, of which i, was sun
posed to be an exact transcript and
furnishes in proof of such ALLEGATION
certified COPY of that record. The
original royal patent is made out to his
alleged ancestor, Kalaeokekoi, "for
Kalakini and her heirs" while the COPY
from the records presented bv him is
to kalaeokekoi for his her heirs. "
Upon an inspection OF the record, the
court finds it in parts to have been
erased and rewritten, but SO clumsiIy
done as to leave no doubt that the
royal patent under which the heirs of
Kalakini claimed was genuine, and
that forgery of the record had been
practiced since that when, how
ever, or by whom, has not transpired.
So far as the fact OF forgery is con
cerned, it is established beyond a
doubt, and we hold it to be the
bounden duty of the executive to hunt
this matter to the bottom. As vet,
however, apparently no concern in the
matter has been evinced by those
whose business it is TO investigate.
Acts Of this kind are not commonly
committed without incentive, and could
not well be effected without collusion
between an interested party and some
employee of government in some way
connected with the custody of the land
records. In contemplation Of the
severe legal penalty that would attach
TO The offender or offenders in ,l,o