The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1892-06-16

follows:
!. Defendant objected to the in
PRODUCTION in evidence of the deed |
from Ruth KeelikoIani 10 Kalaiku- |
eva exhibit Az on the ground
that the first clause in the granting
portion, viz: '1. Elua pa ma Kaa-
kopua, Honolulu" under which
plaintiffs claim, is void for uncer-
tainty in description, and is not
sufficient to admit parol evidence in
support of it.
2. Defendant objected to the ad-
mission of parol evidence offered by
plaintiffs for the purpose of identi-
flying and locating the "elua pa"
named In the above deed.
This point is also made the SUBJ
Ject of a prayer for instruction to
the jury as follows:
1. That the deed from Keeliko-
lani to Kalaikuewa under which
plaintiffs claim is insufficient to con-
vey any title to the land in ques-
ton by reason of vagueness of de-
scription and ambiguity upon the
face of said deed.
The other exceptions are to the
refusal of the Court to grant the fol-
lowing prayers for instruction to
the jury, as follows:
2. That Kalaikuewa and her pri-
vies are estopped by her conduct in
standing by and allowing the deed
to the defendandt to be made, from
now setting up title against the de-
PENDANT.
3. That the deed from Keeliko-
lani to w. P. L. Kalahoolewa being
recorded prior to the deed to Kalai-
kuewa, conveys the property in
question, and that plaintiffs cannot
recover.
4. That plaintiffs cannot recover
any damages herein, because the
right if any to damages is several
and the plaintiff cannot recover in a
joint action.
8. That the plaintiffs cannot
maintain join action in ejectment,
their rights being several.
6. That the plaintiffs cannot re-
cover damages for occupation prior
to the dates of their deeds.
Z. If the jury believe that Kalai-
kuewa was present when Keeliko-
lani made the agreement of sale to
defendant and that she allowed the
sale to be carried out without OBJ
lection and without notice to de-
PENDANT of her claim of title, she
and the plaintiffs who claim under
her are estopped to set up title
against the defendant.
| 8. If the jury believe from the
evidence that at the date of the
deed from Keelikolani under which
the plaintiffs claim, there were sew
eral house lots in the land of Kaa-
kopua, Honolulu, besides the two
mentioned therein, then the re-
cording of said deed constituted nc
notice to subsequent purchasers OF
the lots thereby conveyed.
8. In order to give notice of title
by registration of conveyances, the
premises conveyed must be de.
scribed with sufficient detail
and precision to permit theil
being identified by one ia
miliar with the locality in which
the premises are situated. The
deed from Keelikolani to Kalaiku
eva failing to thus describe the
land in question, conveyed no no
tice by its record to subsequent pur
chasers of the premises in dispute
1t is claimed on the part of tn,
defendant that there is a paten
ambiguity in the deed, that it il
therefore void for uncertainty. The
plaintiffs claim that the ambiguity
is latent and capable of being ex
: planned by parol evidence.
The defendant contends that the
description of the premises must bt
sufficiently definite to enable tn,
land to be identified. The plain
tiffs contend that there is nothing
on the face of the deed to show
that the grantor owned more thar
two lots in Kaakopua-it is only by
extrinsIc evidence that it appear
: that she had other lots in Kaakopua
and that therefore the ambiguity i.
latent. Judge Cation in Dougherty
VS.. Purdy, Is ILL.,, 20S, discusse!
this matter as follows: In the case
before him the land was described
in the deed as an undivided half oil
: the n. w. quarter of section 1
township 1 North in range Yves
, in the State of Illinois. There wa
more than one lot of land to which
this description would apply. The
judge says: "This is latent am
biguity which is shown only to ex
list by the presentation of evidence
r outside the deed. 1t is like the ia
| miliar instances put on the books
. when the deed purports to convey
black acre, and it is shown tina
there are two tracts of land bearing
3 that name. When an ambiguity il
duly made to appear by the intro
duction of proof outside the deed
it is a latent ambiguity and may BIZ
t explained in the same way that i
is shown. The ambiguity may be
removed by showing that the
grantor owned one of them and tht
: presumption is that he intended t.
, convey the one he owned. IF it i:
| shoxvn thot tho GRO ntor oxunnd both