The Hawaiian gazette., 1889-01-22

February, 1919. And on the 18th
June, 1913, their powers were further
extended "for such a period as shall
be necessary for the full and faithful
examination, settlement and award
upon all such claims as may have
been presented to said Board,n and
on the Goth July, 1854, the Legislature
passed an Act providing for the final
dissolution of the Board on the 31st
March, 1856. In this Legislature Lot
kamehameha was member, having
been admitted to the House of Mobiles
by an Act of the 18th May, 1852.
If his disability of infancy at the
date when the time for presenting
claims to the Land Commission ex-
pired, February IA, 1913, excepted
him from the operation of the statute,
1t was his duty to assert his claim to
this land within a reasonable time
after his coming to full age. The
Land Commission would, doubtless,
have rejected his claim, if made, as
being barred by the lapse of time
the statute making no exception in
his favor. But if the law were other
wise, and his plea of infancy was
good at any time, it was certainly
NrOIllllllSSlOlls
only court of competent jurisdiction
to decide upon his claim, was in ex-
istence. The knowledge that the
functions of this Court would soon ex-
pire should have warned him to press
his claim then. Moreover, if his dis
ability was good excuse in law for
not preventing his claim to the Board,
a nla5lddD1us, on his becoming of age,
from the Supreme Court to the Board
would have secured for him all the
rights which he could have had by
presentation of his claim within the
statutory time.
How can q mere claim to have his
title to this land considered and adju-
dictated, be considered to have ripened
into perfect title ut this late day, or
rather into such a title as gives the
devisees of his heirs-at-law right of
possession against the State?
There is no prescription against the
State. Lindsey as. 1[iUeT's Lessee, 8
Pet, 666. The Supreme Court of the
United States say in this case: {" 1t is
a well settled principle that the
Statute of Limitations does not run
against a State. If a contrary rule
was sanctioned, it would only be
for intruders upon the
public lands to maintain their pos
sessions until the Statute of Limita-
tons shall run; and then they would
become invested with the title against
the Government and all persons claim
ing under it. In this way the public
domain would soon be appropriated
Oy Adventures Indeed, it would be
utterly impracticable, by the use of
my power within the reach of the
Government, to prevent this result.
It is only necessary, therefore, to state
he case, in order to show the wisdom
md propriety of the rule that the
statute never operates against the
This was adopted in
rs. Minister Of Interior,
Haw., 635.
If the defendants show no title or
light of possession to this land, their
naked possession can never ripen into
/ title, however much it may afford
ground for liberal dealing with them
IL negotiations for title from the
Government.
This case last quoted involved the
question of ownership of land not
covered by any award of the Land
royal patent or deed
rom the King. The Land Commits
ion did not award it, and the Court
ay: "By force and effect of the
tatutes above quoted Those now
Inder discussion) it must be con-
idered to still belong to the Govern
nent." The only difference between
hat case and the one at bar is, that
n claims for lots in the towns there
Tas in them no third class of persons,
s chiefs or lords, having interme-
larry ownership over tenants, and
he tenant got his claim awarded
irect, paying Communication to the
government, and such q lot of land
-ould escheat to the Government and
OF to the owner of the iii or ahupuaa
ON which it may originally have
cen taken.
The State in the case at bar claims
he land as public domain, not
warded or granted to anyone. a
ecision that the defendants hal
lie right of possession thereto thoR ~
rowing no title, would be equivaleis. -
, a declaration that defendants have
title in fee simple, although it is
limited that they have never COM
Iuted for the Governments right
herein, for a right of possession as
yainst the State would be good
iough title to any land. If lands
by the State are still the
'operty of the State, those who
.cupy them are tTespassers and must
ED the possession on demand to the
ate which holds the title, since the
ght of possession follows the title.
ne most that can be said on behalf
the defendants is that whatever
aim they may have is an equitable
lie, and this would be no defence to
| action of ejectment.
Having found that the infancy of
Ut Kamehameha is no defence to
is suit, we find upon principle and
thority that the plaintiff, upon all
c facts, is entitled to recover DOS
5sion of the land described in the
and accordingly order
1gment to be entered in his favor,
in the nature of judgment, nom
stCtHte UeredictO.
A. S. Hartwell, for plaintiff; P.
and +. NJ. Hatch, for de
ldants.
Honolulu, January 3, 1889.
,ewy'H.g opinion Of M,. Justice MeCWIly.
The Court, sitting in this ejectment
sc without a jury, delivers the rule
law and special verdict in its de-
ion. 1t has held that lands not
arded by the Land Commission
esumabiy excepting the lands re-