The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1889-04-16
JUDD, c. J., M-cULLY, PRESTON, BICKERTON
AND DOLE, III.

| JUDD. c. j., M'CULLY, PRESTON, BICKERTON
AND DOLE, ~.
Opinion OF the Court Dsr Judd, c. J. .
In this case the trustees of Mrs.
Bishops estate seek to recover of
defendants the possession of n par
eel of land, 242-1O00 of an acre in
extent, situate in Kakaako, Homo
lulu, near the Immigration Depot.
1t was proved as claimed in the
declaration, and is not denied by
defendants, that this lot of land is
a part of the land of Kaakaukukui,
granted to Victoria Kamamalu by
Royal Patent number 1883. 1t was
also proved, and it is not disputed
by defendants, that the paper title
to the land sued for is in the plain
tiffs by descent from Victoria Kama
malu, to her father, NJ. KekuanaOa,
thence to his children, Kameha-
meha ", and Ruth Keelikolani,
and by the death of Kamehameha
V. it all passed to Ruth Keeliko-
Iani and from her by descent and
devise to Mrs. B. P. Bishop, whose
trustees under her will the plaintiffs
are.
The plaintiffs evidence tended
to show that one Keau, whose son
and widow the defendants are, re-
spectively, occupied the land in
question as tenant of the plaintiffs
and their predecessors, his business
being a fisherman and the lot being
used as a place for the storing of
canoes and nets.
The defence was title by pre-
scriptiOn, and the defendants offer
ed evidence tending to show that
Keau took possession of this lot as
an invader and continued to live
upon it as his own for a period of
over thirty years.
The verdict Of a mixed jury was
in favor of the defendants. The
plaintiffs excepted to the verdict as
being contrary to the law and the
weight of evidence and moved for
a new trial, which was refused pro
for1so by the presiding Justice,
(Bickerton) 20 which refusal the
case comes by exceptions to the full
Court.
The rule OF law as laid down in
HoWIdRd as. Jacobs, > Hawn. 155,
is that ga new trial will not be
granted on the ground that the
verdict is against the weight of
unless it clearly appears
that the verdict is so manifestly |
against evidence as to lead to the
conviction that either mistake |
has been committed or that inius-
tice has been done on the part of |
the jury"
In Forbes Us. Gibson, 3 Hawn.
go, the Court held &" that a verdict
will not be set aside unless clearly,
palbably, decidedly and strongly
against the evidence"
In Wight Us. Jones, 8 Hawn. 755
4 new trial was refused because the
verdict was not "manifestly the
result of bias or misunderstanding
If the evidence"
The converse of these PROPOSE
ions is that if it appears clearly to
he Court that the verdict is so
against evidence as to |
induce the conviction that a mis-
axe has been made or that injus-
las been done; or when it appears
hat the verdict is clearly, palpably, |
decidedly and strongly against the
evidence, or is manifestly the re-
ult of bias or of misunderstanding
IN the part of the jury, the verdict
will be set aside.
In the case before us we are Of
opinion that the verdict is of this
nature and ought TO be set aside
nd new trial ordered.
The evidence of Mr.. Damon for
he plaintiffs is that Keau, the de-
endant's ancestor, was a very re-
pectabIe man, that he was the head
sherman under Keelikolani says
Ir. Damon, Kamakaoni remark
d to me that swe live under the
hiefs.' On the death of Kameha-
1eha V. they often told me that
he nets and canoes were under his
Keau's) charge I'VE gave him
ease of fishery, house and lot. Dur
nc Mrs. Bishops life he continu-