The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1888-06-05

Band " y ~ QIANN' t. ~
Orrx. GEORGE HsLL, LAHAPA
sNpN. KENSEpY HER HUSBAND.
opai5a qr tie Cai9 Justice
This j. an action Of ejecrment 10
recover one undivided hall OF some
sixteen acres OF land situate al ha-
rssr. hohaIa, Hawaii, granted by
povsL Patent Number 4Sss, 10 one
Haaheo-
~ plaintiff. kanaloa, claims to be
entitled 10 oue-fourth OF this estate by
descent from the patentee, Haaheo,
aaa 10 one-fourth by purchase from
Kane. her brother. Only the defend
znrs. Geo. Hall and Lahapa have
answered, service upon the guardian
III -e4. Ot the minors Quinn APP
bearing 10 he detective.
HaAheo died without issue, intes-
-4re and insane. il April, lSoo, and
both plaintiffs and defendants admit
that be left a widow, hahue who sur
1-fvei aim about wear. The plain
-fr. Kaualoa. glaiH1s that she and
Kane. her brother. were children of
Eaiu1a. ty hawahalelee; that Kali
nos was the son OF Maunaoloia by
h4meai4ui and that Maunaoloia was
the brother Oi haiuapau, who Is ad-
uirred hv defendants 10 be the father
81 Haaheo. patented by his wife XII
Hoe. The plaintiffs claim that hu-
Eauag (. and kauslOa w were
parents u kainspau and Maunao-
lola. Tire defendants eoncede that
hukzua1 was the father of hainapau
bur claim that hainapau's mother
was kameawahiue. and not hanaioa,
and they claim that hukanao haG
Uut one child. hainapau, and that
MauuaolOia was not MS son.
some eighteen witnesses were eN-
zmiued and, aS i common in cases
ike this. Of contested genealogy, the
evidence. being mainly derived from
conversations with members OF the
family Is very contradictory. To as
certain whether kukanao had one
son only or whether he had two sons
requires a knowledge Of events that
happened iH this country at the be-
ginning u this century, when there
WaS no know ledge Of writing and no
courts and no records wherein to per-
peIuate these events. am required
u settle the question whether or not
the grandfather Of man who died an
old man, twenty years ago, had
second son by . woman who we call
hi- wife" ID want OF q better term
10 distinguish the relation that then
existed between man and woman,
long before Christian marriage was
introduced here.
To guide me over this sea Of uncer-
laiuIy. where one class of apparently
truthful witnesses declare that Mau-
ua0loia was tie son of hukana0 and
another class, apparently equally
truthful and respectable assert that
hailapau only was known by them
and their ancestors To be the son OF
hukanaO, ! am obliged to resort to
some partiCul II features Of the 1esti-
mouy. One l. this: nearly all the
witnesses say that hainapau, the
father Of the patentee, Haahe0l was
known by them and ali residents Of
huhala to be a chief, and the defend
ants witnesses say that though IA
Lli-lzr with the family, many OF them
having been its reJainers, they never
knew 1r heard Of AIaUuaOlOia a. being
q chief on i brother OF kainapau.
10 NOT 70 TO the extent Of saying
that il is not possible for 3 chief to
have lad a brother who was lost sight
Jf because from a different mother, of
low rsuk, or from not being in favor
with the King OF high chiefs, and not
have lands in his possession, or have
become obscure from bis having re-
moved % 8 remote part OF the king
dom But the plaintiffs witnesses
le-ate Nauua0lOia IS living and dy-
ing in hohals. and Is having the
same mother - well u father as
haiuapau. Witnesses would, /
think Be less likely 10 BE- mistaken
lIl regard 10 the rank Of an Individual
l-lan iu regard TO his ancestry, and as
am OF opinion that kainapau is
shown 10 have been q chief, regard
lt a. very much against the parentage
llaIIed by defendants for Mauna0-
lola that he was not acknowledged by
the witnesses 70 be also q chief.
sm zlso Impressed with the want
% knowledge shown by many Of the
plaintiffs witnesses OF the geuealogy
Is the wives OF kainoa and Maunao-
lola. whereas they testify very def
licelE OF the genealogy Of the men
themselves.
On The whole case am Of the opin-
ion that the weight OF evidence pre-
p1HGeFares in favor OF the defendants,
and I am not convinced that Mauna-
alola tine grandfather Of plaintiff,
hsnal0a7 was the uncle OF Haaheo,
patented
The burden Of proof i upon the
plaintiffs.
They must recover, if 1t all, upon
rhe strength Of their own title and
case
There are other incidents that lead
nae 70 this conclusion.
in 1855 certain proceedings were
had iu the PROBATE Court at kohala,
before Circuit Judge Naiapaakai in
the estate of hAaheJ The plaintiff,
then thirty years old, and her family,
we're there and must have known OF
the proceedings kahue, the widow,
sppl "a for and WIS appointed admin
istra Tx Of the estate, and the prop
erty vas finally decreed to her a. the
sole heir. This was the course usu-
ally followed, ii no collateral heirs
appeared
The decree j. too Informal 10 operate
.s- E.r ra r-T. -tffr and l. NOT tlIaadad