The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1889-04-16

ally brought fish without payment.
We only charged him twenty dol
lars per year. After Keau's and
Pauahi's deaths, these canoes and
nets were to be sold. We gave
MakaOni canoe and net and others
were sold" d. RahaRu, a well
known resident of Kakaako, said
that Keau lived on Victoria's land,
under her, Kekuanaoa, Kameha-
meha v, Keelikolani and Mrs.
Bishop, as fisherman. The land
borders on the harbor The chief
owned the nets, canoes, etc. Keau
divided fish and money with the
chiefs. He told me about it. This
tenancy of Keau is substantiated by
hiwaa, Kanakaokai, Kukahiko and
huaana, all residents of Kakaako.
The defendant, Makaoni, widow
of keau, admits that Victoria gave
them in charge two canoes and nets,
but says that Keau gave part of
fish for use of nets and not for use
of the land. She also says that
"The canoes of the chiefs us we'll
as those we had were pulled up on
the land. When Victoria died,
Kekuanaoa took all canoes away.
kamehameha V. brought them
back. We did not tell Kameha-
meha that we owned the land.
Keelikolani's nets and canoes were
hauled up on this land. Keau told
keelikolani that he claimed the
land. She did not take them
away" Kala, the other defend
ant, and son of Keau, admits that
Keau went to fish for the chiefs,
also the canoes and nets were the
chiefs. The fish was divided be-
tween the chiefs and the fisherman.
Part of the fish was given to the
chiefs for the use OF the canoes and
nets"
We reeite these portions of the
testimony to show that by the de-
PENDANTS own testimony the pos
session of the defendants could not
have been exclusive. The action
of the chiefs (who defendants ad-
mitted successfully owned the land
of which the premises in dispute
are part in placing their canoes
and nets on this spot as a right, and
removing them as they pleased and
them again without ques-
ton from Keau, would indicate
that Keau's use of the premises
was not exclusive and not hostile
to the chief. If Keau was tres
paSser when he entered on this land
and claimed the premises as his
own, as he must have done in order
to have his continued possession of
the character that would bar the
plaintiffs right of action, it is most
that he would have been
allowed to remain in possession of
these premises and to continue in
the capacity of head fisherman,
caring for the canoes and nets of
the chiefs and using them in the
fisheries adjacent. Something more
than mere possession fer twenty
years is necessary; all the authori-
ties say that the possession must be
adverse, hostile, exclusive and no
torious.
The assertion of the defendants
that the share of fish or of money
divided from its sale paid by Keau
10 the chief was as rent for the use
If the canoes and nets, is also most
to be true and improbable
70 have continued so amicably if
I<eau had ever asserted a claim to
he premises occupied by him.
That Keelikolani, in 1874, under
stood that Keau was living on her
and is evidenced by the clause in
Ter lease to Dowsett, in which the
house lot occupied by Keau and his
amily is reserved, though it did
lot bind Keau he not being a party
o it. -.
The weight of the whole evidence
5 so clearly and decidedly in favor
# the plaintiffs that we feel that
he jury must either have misun-
lerstOOd its effect or have acted,
When they returned a verdict for
defendants, from some bias or pre-
ldice, and we feel obliged to set
side the verdict and order a new
rial, which is done accordingly.
p. Neumann and J. L. Kaulukou
or plaintiffs ; c. Creighton and s.
(. Kane for defendants.
Honolulu, March %. 1889.