The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1888-07-25

n"hehameha Lands Decided to ReIoDp
TO the Estate-QuestiOn Turns on the
flights of Minor-The Kings Sow
erelgn Rights in Land Denied.

Judge Dole on Tuesday filed his deci.
sion In the cause of l.. A. Thurston, Min
lister OF the Interior, VS. c.. R. Bishop ct
al, and 1t is in favor of the defendants.
Inc cause was on the calendar for the
last April term, and jury was waived
and 1t was tried in vacation bv consent
OF the parties. Mr. A S. HartweH rep
resented the Government, and Messrs.
+. M. Hatch and Paul Neumann the
Trustees of the Kamehameha Estate.
1t was suit in ejectment for the Iii Of
Opu, brought upon the ground "that it
! has never been and is not now awarded.
! patented, granted or leased under or by
virtue of any land award, royal patent
or government grant or lease, and that
by the law applicable in such cases, the
Hawaiian Government is the absolute
| and unlimited owner thereof" or, in
| other words, that the Government, bv
virtue OF its sovereignty, is the owner of
all lands which are not held by some
title proceeding from ITSELF
Two lines of defense were taken,
namely:
First: That Kamehameha III. was
the sole owner of all the lands of the
Kingdom by virtue of the sovereignty
which he received from his predecessors,
subject, however, to certain underlined
rights Of chiefs and people, and that
having satisfied such rights by the con-
cesSiOns which were carried out through
the Land Commission and the Mahele
the ownership of other lands not dis
posed OF remained in him, and has des-
cended to his heirs; and the land in dis
pute being one of such unassigned lands
now legally vests in the defendants !;
and,
"Secondly: That the chief Hoapili
was formerly in possession OF this land
and was the recognized owner thereof
according to the ancient system of land
tenure; that, when he died in 1910, he
gave it or left it by oral bequest to Lot
Observation-Disclosures Kamehameha V.
then about ten years old, and that it
was held for and by Lot Kamehameha
without interruption until his death in
1872, and thereupOn vested in his heirs. J"
His Honor opens his commentary on
the testimony by saying there is little
doubt about the facts. The two lines of
defense are inconsistent. Plaintiff hav-
ing admitted the facts in the second line,
there is no need to consider the other
line of defense, based upon the sovereign
title of the King, as by the Declaration
of Rights, announced in the year 1882
protection was assured to all persons
with their lands and other property,
with the guarantee that nothing what
ever shall be taken from any individual
except by express provision of the laws.
| This Act Invested the King of his sover-
| eign right of control of the Iii of Opu and
gave Hoapili and his representatives an
! interest in it, under the provisions OF the
| law creating Board of Commission to
| Quiet Land Titles" generally known as
| the Gland Commission" enacted De-
cember 10, 1915. The Commission was
authorized to recognize private interests
in lands by virtue of royal grant or gift
| made orally anterior to 1889. 1t would
| inquire simply into the history OF the
! derivation. No claim was presented to
! the Commission on behalf of kameha-
meha. He was born in 1880 and was
! not twenty years old at the termination
of the time for presenting claims, on the
! 14th of February, 1913.
Persons who were absent from the
| Kingdom or who were unrepresented
| therein were the only ones exempted
| from the requirement of having to have
their property rights, above mentioned,
confirmed by the Land Commission.
There was no exception made in favor
of minors, and Kamehameha was a
minor. His Honor, however, goes to
the standard authorities, where he shows
that no minor can be prejudiced or de-
prived of rights by the neglect OF his
guardians Kamehameha's ''parent and
guardian" during his minority had
failed to apply to the Land Commission
for confirmation of the title in question,
yet, according to the authorities cited in
favor of minors, Judge Dole concludes
his learned opinion in the words fol-
lowing:
"Under these principles, therefore,
and the evidence submitted, do not
find a right of possession to this land in
the plaintiff, and order judgment to be
antnred for the defendantS' -