The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1884-05-21
3alraiialr 6azrttG.
WEDNESDAY, MAY 81. 1854.
Supreme Court of the Hawaiian Islands
April Term, 1854.
KGHuakU Fl. Al. VS.. USrox MILL Co, Er. AL.
EjeotmcDt Tnoa 61Sore KeCusy J., tie yurs
rafred.

The land in question. situated at Koha-
la, Hawaii. is grant to one Wahakuli ivy
deceased intestate. The plaintiffs claim
eight ninths undivided interest, and dam
ages, as being the collateral heirs of the
Crown grantee. The defendant Mill Com
pany holds 60 acres by deed from IA
maka (w.) who is shown to be a sister Of
Kahuaku and Ahukinilaa two of the plain
tiffs The other defendant is Kaikuahine,
husband Of the said Kamaka who Is now
divorced. these two defendants holding in
common without division.
The relationship by which plaintiffs
claim is, on the part of the three plaintiffs
who have been named, that they are the
children of Nahua who was cousin of the
grantee Another plaintiff, Wahine o.
claims as cousin Of the grantee by the half
blood, and two others, Kaheana and hai
kiumi claim as the children of Palua, an
other cousin Of the half blood. These are
all inheriting relationships, the kindred Of
the half blood inheriting equally with
those of the whole blood in the same de
gree, except in cases where the inheritance
came to the intestate by descent, devise or
gift from some ancestor, when the descent
is confined to the blood of such ancestor,
which is not the case here.
See Section 1454 of the Code
The patentee Wahakuli died in July,
1865, leaving husband haikuahine Sr..
a nephew of the husband, who is the kai-
kuahine defendant and had lived with
them as a "keikin He married Kamaka
and they appear TO have remained in pos
session of the premises. without claim ON
the part of heirs Of WahakuE, Kamaka
selling GO acres. as above, and Kaikuahine
and the Union Mil Co now holding in
common. The plaintiffs testify that the
reason for their not asserting the claim of
heirship is because the property had rested
in possession OF kamaka their sister and
cousin. and her husband kaikuahine who
was also one Of the family, and had been
considered "keikihanai" or adopted son
of Wahakul, and that WahaIuli had given
them the land by 'Kauoha," or oral be
quest to these parties, a form Of devise
which still carries influence with Hawai-
ians, but that these considerations had
now failed in consequence OF the sale to
outside parties. and the divorce of Ia
mska, leaving the land in possession of
strangers.
The testimony offered by the plaintiffs
is of the quality and amount which Is
usually presented in the establishment of
Hawaiian relationships. In the absence
of controversy it would prove the claim.
The evidence per contra does not in my
opinion prepolderate. II depends on es-
tablishing as fact that Wahakuli and her
family belonged to the district of Hama,
Maui, and emigrated to Kohala, and that
she was not the daughter of one Kailaa.
There are inconsistencies and improbable
tiles in the testimony for the defence which
discredit it, moreover the defendants best
witness in cross-examination supports
plaintiffs case. 1t is easier to accept the
theory that the emigration from Maui was
the return from a visit of perhaps extended
length, and that the family belonged to
Kohala.
think it may well be considered, too
that the defendant as to three fourths Of
the land, the Mil Co. holds by the title
which the plaintiffs support.
Its possession is recent and its only color
of title is the deed from Kamaka whose
title is one with that of the plaintiffs in
her proportion thereof. Kaikuahine shows
LU IlEllb ne Ids Telldlltu DN SlllIdlCe
since the death Of the patentee and her
husband.
shall find for the plaintiffs
As to damages The defendants have
had no notice before that given prior to
bringing this suit, that the plaintiffs had
claim on the land. They have not kept
them out of it previously. The principal
defendant bought Of party in possession,
whose rights had never been called in
question by the other heirs. She was an
heir. and the plaintiffs allowed it to be con
sidered by the world that she was the sole
heir.
l give the slight or nominal sum of
twenty-five dollars, for which as well as
the costs the defendants are liable jointly
and severally.
The plaintiffs are adjudged to be entitled
as follows:
Wahine o. to one third.
Kaheana to one sixth.
haikiumi to one sixth.
hahuaka to one ninth
Ahukiniala8 TO one ninth.
leaving one ninth interest in the defendant
Union Mill Company, the grantee of ka-
mRks who was entitled to so much.
Let Judgment be entered accordingly.
VIM. r. Castle for plaintiffs, Mr. Preston
also; Cecil Brown and L. Kaulukou for
defendants.
Honolulu, May LIST, 1884