The Hawaiian gazette., 1889-04-09


Oum5oe o. IRE Co..rs by P-sS!oa, j.
This Is IN action Of eieetment
brought 70 recover possession Of TWO
pisCSS q land situate ST WSipio, Eva,
Island Of OShu, comprised in Royal
PSrsuC No. 81, and which the plain
tits claimed in fee the said kuana-
lswa 70 thrss-sighCh> thereof by de-
scent GUi pu7ChSSe, and the said
NSmokusha 70 Ons-sighrh thereof by
purchase, ana 70 the other hall there
q by reason Of adverse possession for
$ term o. twenty years ana over oI
sid plaintiffs and the ancestors Of
sid huSuSlswG.
The CSu>s was tried before MCGully,
!, sui 3 uAtive jury, 81 the last oc-
rocer Term, and the jury were directed
that rheySCuld give > verdict for oaly
% much land s. the plaintiff huana-
LEWIS had proved title 70, and, IN any
event. 70 not more than Seven-eIghtnS
81 the land.
The jury returned 81 verdict for the
plaintiffs generally. To which YER
diet the defendants excepted - being
contrary 10 law Sud the evidence, ana
gave notice Of motion for : new trial,
which motion WIS Srgued before the
said Justice on the twentieth day OF
October. who ordered that s. new trial
be granted unless the plaintiffs filed
s disclaimer 10 One-sighIl Of the land,
srd on the same day the plaintiff
NsnlokueLa filed such disclaimer.
The defendants excepted to this
decision, which exceptions we've AZ
zued at the lsst January term.
At the criaL the plaintiffs put in
evidence Royal Patent No. S1T 70
kshCIChans Of the land in question,
and proved his death in ISIS. leaving
one daughter. heau, his sole heireSs-
a--Law him surviving, and that heau
married one PuasLau and had issue:
l. kszuhanspouo, married 70 huhe-
IelO2; ? haLkO, who died young
and 8. Nsiku. who survived his
parents The plaintiffs also put IN
evidence 3 deed dated the Sth day OF
August, 1856, whereby heauhanapono
described IS sole heir Of keaul and
Esr husbuud kuhelEl0a conveyed the
land in question 70 one Manlnl >v.l
sni that MarIni and her husband
entered under this deed, and that
Manini died. leaving TWO children
George LBarlCttle| ami Sarah tine
plaintiff hulnalewal. The plaintiff
also put in evidence deed dated
I5th October, 1850, whereby the said
George HaTbOttIe conveyed Ms IN
tereSt in the said land 10 the plain
CitfS.
H. rlaiHsiss- 49, testimony IN
other points which IL Is not necessary
60 consider
The defendant put in evidence s
deed dated the second day OF July,
ISIS. whereby the Marshal OF the
Kingdom, in pursuance Of = sale oy
public auction. under 81 execution
issued from the Supreme Court At the
suit Of All Wong against the said
plaiutitf NSul0kueld- conveyed 70 W.
4. Kinney all the estate, rgntr title
and interest which the said AamOku-
chs was seized or possessed OF on the
18th day Of May then LAST Of IN and 10
the said lands.
Upon this evidence We have 70 con-
slider what interests the phIntIrfs held
in the land ct the time or the COM
usucement OF this suit July Lthi
ISIS.
on the argument bebre AIcCullyr
J., counsel for the detndants con-
tended, that in any C2e, in view Of
the conveyance 10 Kinney the plain
tiffs could not TecOyE more than
three-eighths Of the lana
At the hearing Of tie exceptions
counsel for the defendants cOntended
that the plaintiffs cOud not recover
anything. and that the Plaintiffs hav-
inc discLaimei IS 10 ue-eIgnthr all
the estates were ve=teS II Kinney Is
follows:
Ons-sighth in fee simple.
So The custody. use, ISufTuct rents,
issues and profits" Of One-eIghth
during the lifetime O NamOkueha ?
OF. in case he suTviTs huaualewa,
until their children ftain majority.
The title 10 thEee-tOuIhs subject 10 be
defeated IN case hUlGIe7Ta survives |
her husband.
Counsel for the plantItfs commended |
that the deed 70 Kinney dl1 not pass
suT interest in the SIfe's land; and |
that If anything passed the defend
ants should have jEt1fied their pos
session under such ded-
With RESPECT 70 tIS last point il Is
sufficient 70 say tIIa the action being |
for the possession land, Ii l. COM
uetent for the defenant 70 show that
the plaintiffs have gt the immediate
right OF p0ssessiOn5nd for that pup
p6S5 10 show that re plaintiffs have
lost such right by-ouyeyaHcer lease
OF otherwise, TO az persons.
But II seems TO : that counsel On
both sides have 1sapprehended the
law applicable tdhe facts g before
On the death KaholohaAa the
uatenteeJ the IaE descended to his
daughter keaU. On her death il de-
seznded 10 her sildreu, keauhanz-
bono and NeIkuss tenants in COM /
mon. By the clveyaEce Of the 6th
August, 1856, BaUhanapOnO Ousted
and disseized hebrOtheT Neiku, and
the statute q IiEtatIOnS commenced
10 run. The gratee Manini and her
husband in her ght having entered,
The land Oh theisath Of AIaniui de-
zeeuded 70 her cildren, George lHaT-
bottle and san 1.-THE plaintiff KUa-
naIewaT, IN eqd mOieties as tenants
in common. Ie plaintiff Namoku-
cha became eHtlsd % the rents and
profits o. his Ife5s m0iety, and BY
The c0uveyzneEOm George HarbOttIe |
70 the pIaintif5hsy became entitled
10 the other IDiety By eatiFeties, |
consequently K conveyance under |
the eLecUtiO10 Kinney passed the
rzur= and uFOE Of one mOiety during L