The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1886-01-19
aaluaiian Gazette,
TUESDAY. JANUARY IL, isss
In the Szprs.ne Court OF the Hawaiian
O~eoe~r Tern. 1SSS-
EeYrHESA NAKEr AND HEB HUsERNp vs.
J. W. HIwAULr.

Esfers MccCLLr ,.
The complaint claims damages, having been
tsgfiev ons,ed from premises conveyed by
deed rseited below. The 6efeudsnt deurrs
upon the ground that the deed contains no
covenant q title in the premises and ioy quiet
cujOymenL
The isstruneut Is in the Hawaiian language.
translate Il as follows
Kuow al men hy this Instrument that We
both lu,anal Hiwsnli u ard NY wife kaeha
IN. } Of Waiauae, Island Of Oahu, for as much
as Hiki (k.) was the own brother CT Maualanl
" } who was the own mother Of Nalua (k)
who vas NY father (HiwsulO ard in ecusid-
Grafton Of two hundred and thirty-uine dollars
received BY rs from TryPhenA NAkeu w the
receipt Of which IS Acknowledged BY this IN
ssrument. We have therefore given to be your
cwu Ia lilo loa) BY sale or purchase and eoo-
vsy ard release altogether Goal cur right or
porticn, t''krlean2'' in the los Of land awarded
to Hiki q by Royal Patent No. 29Sl based
o. kuleNna award No, 1879, situated Al kapS-
lana, Hsaa, Island Of Oahu, and conveyance
il made Of cur interest in the said above lard,
Of zuv and every kind, all the rights aud ap-
p1rtenanees thereof, TO TryphsnA NakeU (w.)
ard her heirs, successors ard assigns forever.
AID We both bird ourselves our heirs sue
cessorS ard assigrs with covenant Of truth
&c execute truly (bookc pono, !. e. truly carry
Out) ali things written in this Instrument.
In witness whereof etc, etc, etc.
l. seems 70 re that the latter clause Of the
deed Is ccye5z1t. The Hawaiian Phrase
olosy IS s1sScisnily an equivalent Ct the terus
eo-rouly used 70 express = covenant in the
English. But s'any words IL ) deed 10 what
scever part found from which the intent Of the
parties &c enter into an engagement can he col
leclsd are sufficient for that purpose. New
ccz1b vs.. Presley Sth Net. 4le. Il Is > cove
uaus TO sxecute warrant ard defend what y
previously expressed IN the deed. Aud that
tRSe to be that the Eeuealosy SET forth IN the
deed Is correct, VIZ. that the grartor IS the
grandson Of The sister Of the patentes. and that
be CONVEYS to the granior such an interest Is
by that recital Of relationship be may have 10
the estate Of the pltenIee. What does that
recital import, Il does not import or covenant
sbaI The patsntee left no issue, or widow or
that MaEalaui, the grandmother was tie only
byUtber OF sister to take colisIsraliy, or shat
Malta. her sou, was sole heir to her, or that
the grantor i the sole heir q his father, Or
that al Ct these parties are deceased or are
iulestate- The complaint sets forth tBat tie
plaintiff has been 0usted BY one hale AtbOUua,
lawfully claiming BY Al older and better title.
There nav be better titles 10 perfect cousis-
,ency with what the granIor has set cut IN bis
deed and coyenan,ed 70 be true. Il Is not al
legged in the complaint that the recilals OF the
deed are not true. In ny view that Is all
which the grantor covenanJsd to m1iRtaiu- II
be took nothing thereby bis grantees cannot
bold him for breach Of contract.
The l5sBlag7-g- Is szst,tile6 and The cunplliu;
dismissed.
". r. Castle for plaintiffs; Kinney & Peter
sen for defendant.
Ho1olulu, December I6Sb, 1854.