The Hawaiian gazette., 1889-01-22

ST.. Jvstre Dole disseHtWg.l
This action was brought at the
anril term, lSSs, OF this Court. The
frrv was waived and the case heard
Hv Mr.. Justice Dole in vacation, by
consent of parties. The following is
the decision of the Court rendered on
tBe 2i,h July:
"This j. a suit in eiectment in which
the plaintiff claims for the Govern
menJ the Iii of Opu, on 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 OF lease, and that by the law
applicable in such cases, the Hawai-
Ian Government is the absolute and
unlimited owner thereof or in other
words, that the Government by virtue
Of its sovereignty, is the owner of all
lands which are notheld by some title
proceeding from itself.
The defendants on the other hand
claiming the ownership Of this land
from a period anterior to the cstab-
Iishment of the Hawaiien Govern
ngeat as a separate authority from
ti3e VIII of the King, offer two distinct
Lines Of defense as follows; llstl,
That kamehamCha III. was the sole
owner of all the lands Of the King
dom, iy virtue of the sovereignty
which DE received from his predeces-
Sars, subject however, to certain un-
defined rights OF chiefs and people,
and that having satisfied such rights
uy the concessions which were carried
oUt by the Land Commission and the
Hgacf., the ownership Of other lands
mot disposed of remained in him, and
has descended to his heirs; and the
land i'm dispute being one of such I'M
assigned lands, now legally vests IN
tae defendants; and cd, That the
chief, Hoapii, was formerly in pos
session of this land, ami was the rec
ewuiZed owner thereof, according to
the ancient system of land tenure;
that when he died, in 1910, he gave 1t
er left ii, by oral bequest, to Lot Ka-
mehameha, since kamehameha V,
then about ten years old, and that it
was held for and by Lot Kameha-
meha without interruption, until his
death in lS72, and thereupon vested
iu his heirs.
There is little dispute as to the facts
En- the case. 1t is admitted by the
plaintiff that Hoapili was in posses
sion of the land and gave it to Lot
hamehameha in 1910, and that the
latter afterwards enjoyed it until his
death. 1t is also conceded by the
plaintiff that the defendants are en- |
titled To whatever interest was in Lot |
kamehameha at his death.
The two lines of defense are inCon-
1.
said to be in the alternative. The |
evidence adduced in support of the |
second line of defense, and the facts /
admitted by the plaintiff, authorize |
me To find, as 4 conclusion of fact, |
that Hoapili held this land for an in |
definite period and transferred it to .
Lot kamehameha in 1910, and that !
the latter enjoyed it until his death. /
With this finding of fact, | need I.
not consider the other line of defense, |
based upon the sovereign title of the |
King, a by the Declaration of Rights !
annOUncedin the year 1889, protection /.
was assured to all persons with their
lands and other property, with the
guarantee that nothing whatever
shall be taken from any individual
except by express provision of the
laws odd Laws, lO). This Act
Invested the King of his sovereign
right of control of the Iii of Opu, and
gave HoaPili and his representatives
an interest in it, which, under the
provisions of the law creating the
Board of Commissioners to Quiet
Land Titles generally known as the
Land Commission, enacted December
10th, lS45, and the " Principles adopt
ed by the Board of Commissioners to
quiet land titles, in their adjudication
of claims presented to them,n August
10th, 1915, and approved by resolu-
ton OF the Legislative Council Octo-
Der 20. 1916, became q claim to land,
which should have been presented to
the Land Commission for adiudica-
ton before February "A, 1913. There
can be no doubt that the Land Com
mission was authorized to recognize
private interests in lands by virtue of
royal grant or Gift made orally and
TO 1889. For the purposes
Of this Board in all cases where the
land has been obtained from the
King, or his authorized agent with
ont a written voucher, anterior to the
9TH of June, 1889, the Board will in
lnire simply into the history of the
Derivation; and if the land claimed
has been continuously occupied, built
upon, or otherwise improved, since s
that time, without moIcstation, the !
Board viii, in ease no contests exist ,
between private claimants, infer a ]
reehold less than allodial.n (Princi- !
lles OF the Land Commission, Stat
ate Laws, 92).
Ii is admitted by the defense that I
no claim for this land on behalf of {
lot Kamehameha, was presented to {
he Land Commission according to {
aw. Under these circumstances ]
therefore,, it is clear to me that the j
and in question vested in the Ha- f
yaiian Government by virtue of the .
allure to present the claim for it to
he Land COMMISSIONS aforesaid, I'M L
ess there were circumstances which i
excepted Lot Kamehameha from the i
peratioB of the rule of the Land Com ;
mission, barring claims not presented {
q time. Il Statute Laws 100, Sec. s.
statute Laws, go. Counsel for de- "
eHdants claim that there were such Ii
circumstances IN the fact of Lot Ka- |:
nehameha being minor during the |
ime when claims might be presented. h
[ i not denied by the plaintiff that +,
e was minor during such period, | {,
nd the evidence shows that he was r,
orn in 1880, and consequently was c
- than twenty years of age at the h
of the time for present. I
no Claims. on the l4th of Eehruor,-