The Hawaiian gazette., 1889-01-22

] snail ne taken lIOlu any llulN luudl
except by express provision of the
/ laws.n Would the destruction of a
minors rights for failure of due pre-
! sentatiOn Of his claims he taking of
his property by express provision OF
( the laws within the meaning and
/ intent of the Declaration of Rights?
! 1t does not seem to me that such an
/ application of legal proceedings could
/ have been contemplated. But it may
| Ice argued, Lot Kamehameha, though
/ n minor, was or might have been rep
resented by his father as his natural
| guardian. AS a matter of fact, find
from the public record of the MdhcLe,
/ that Kekuanaoa, his father, signed
/ the MdhcLo deed, in regard to other
lands for his son, Lot Kamehameha,
! signing himself as father and guard
ian. He might undoubtedly, under
/ the then existing statute, have pre-
/ scented q claim for the Iii of Opu to
/ the Land Commission on behalf of
/ Lot Kamehameha, but he did not,
and the question is, can his, or any
ones failure to do so prejudice the
rights of his minor son?
An infant shall lose nothing by
non-claim, or neglect of demanding
his right, nor shall any other laches
or negligence be imputed to an infant,
except in some very particular cases."
4 Wendelfs Blackstones Com. 464).
"The Court will protect the rights of
infants where they are manifestly en-
titled to something, although their
guardian I'D Item neglects to claim
it on their behalf" (Stephen ct al.
rs. Van Buren, ct al, Paige 49,
SyLabuSI. 1.-The general rule of the
present day is, that an infant shall be
bound by no act which is not bene-
fetal to him. (Schouler's Dom. Rel.
532). One leading principle runs
through all cases which relate to in
fants. 1t is that such persons are ia
voTites of the law which extends its
protection over them, so as to preserve
their true interests against their own
improvidence, if need be, or the de-
signs of others.n ibid. From these
authorities it would appear to be the
corrct conclusion of law that Lot Ka-
mehameha was not barred of his
rights in this land from his or any
ones failure to present his claim
within the time required by law, and
! q
there was no opportunity afforded for
the presentation of his claim, unless
it is found in the two Acts for the re-
lief of certain Konohillis, approved
August 10, 1854, and August a, 1860,
respectively, but as both of these Acts
relate only to KonOhikis who were
entitled to lands under the MaheLe,
they offered no opportunity for OBJ
tanning an award to the Iii of Opu, as
it was not among the lands divided
by the Mabele.
Under these principles, therefore,
and the evidence submitted, do not
find right of possession to this land
in the plaintiff, and order judgment
to be entered for the defendants.
To the rulings of law therein made
the plaintiff excerpts as follows:
This was an action of eiectment, in
which the plaintiff claimed, as Min
lister of the Interior, to be entitled to |
the possession of certain land des- |
cribed by metes and bounds called the
Iii Of Opu, as part of the public or |
lands of the Kingdom, |
which 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 Govern |
ment is the absolute and unlimited |
owner thereof, and that the said land |
herein claimed, and the right to the |
possession, custody, charge and super
vision thereof are by law vested in
], q lpit Nc, 81 Of
The Court found upon the evidence
that the said land has never been, and |
is not now awarded, patented, granted
Dr leased, under or by virtue of any
and award, royal patent or govern
nent grant or lease, except Il certain
ancient lease now expired, of which Il
copy is on file marked Exhibit l..
The Court also found upon the evil
lence and upon the plaintiffs adj
that the said land was in
he possession of the chief, HOapili,
up to his death in 1910, and that he
gave or left it by oral bequest to Lot
[amehameha, afterwards Kameha-
neha V, then about ten years old,
who thereafter, until his death, in
So, held and occupied it without i'll
and that whatever title
herein was held by him at his death
las descended and become vested in
be defendants.
The Court also found us a fact that
t the date when the time for filing {
laims before the Land Commissioners
lad expired Lot Kamehameha was
Detween eighteen and nineteen years
# age.
The Court also found upon the evil
ence that Kekuanaoa, the father of {
4ot kamehameha signed the "Mahele {
Deed" in regard to other lands of his l
aid son, than that claimed in this
elton, but that no claim to this land
allied Opu, was ever presented to the t
Soard of Commissioners to quiet titles 5
4 land. c
The Court ruled as matter of law i
hat said Lot Kamehameha was not
AIRED of his rights in said land called
,pu, by reason of his own or anyOne's C
allure to present such claim within @
ne time required by law before the t
'oard of Commissioners to quiet titles S
1 land, basing such ruling upon the o
lct of said Lot Kamehameha's nom 4
re. q
Wherefore the Court ordered judy "
lent for the defendants, to which "
ldgment, as we'll as to said ruling of Il
w, the plaintiff duly excepted and W
lch exceptions were allowed by the 81
ourt.u fl
BY THE COURT. The sole question Il
hich is presented by these excep- G