The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1892-06-16
OPINION OF THE COURT PER JUDE

G.. j..
The plaintiff Kuhiau having de-
ceased testate on the eighth day OF
June, 1891, since the trial of this
case before a jury, the following
persons are substituted therefor
with leave to proceed with the suit,
viz, Christian Titcomb by Lorrin
A. Thurston and Angelina Kuhiau,
his guardians, and Lawrence Kekei
and Kaomea, devisees of said Ku-
hiau.
At the hearing on the bill of
exceptions, the attorneys for the
plaintiffs moved to dismiss it on the
ground that it did not, according to
Rule s, embody the testimony. We
find that the bill of exceptions sets
out g that the witnesses respec-
lively testified as per the notes of
the official stenographer, a trans
cript whereof is hereto annexed
marked Exhibit X, and made a
part hereof"
The roll made up by the Court
stenographer of his notes of the evil
dence written upon a typewriter
was not annexed to the bill of ex-
ceptions. It is bulky, consisting of
1875 pages of foolscap, and could not
conveniently be annexed to the
bill. 1t was not in fact marked Ex-
hibit X. But it was made up and
marked with the name of the case,
and was lying with other rolls con-
tanning evidence adjacent to where
the papers were filed.
AS this Court has not had the
assistance of a shorthand reporter
very long, and the question is there
fore a new one to us, we hold that
the rule has been sufficiently COM
piled with in this case. We think
the proper practice should be this {:
The stenographer should sign the
transcript of evidence, and the clerk
should label it with the name
of the case, and it should be
so marked as an exhibit to the bill
of exceptions as to be readily iden-
titled as part of it and be filed.
n oCCOuIC VI tiIC SOOC VIII
assist US in disposing of the excep-
tons raised by the bill.
1. January 30th, 1871, Ruth Kee-
likolani sold to Kalaikuewa (w.) the
two lots of land at Kaakopua, Homo
lulu.
2. BY deed of the same date she,
r. Keelikolani, conveyed to w. P.
Leleiohoku KalahooleWa the entire
Ill of Kaakopua.
3. August oath, 1878, Ruth Kee-
likolani conveyed to Kahaumia and
Keaweamahi, husband and wife, for
life, the same land that she had
previously conveyed to Kalaikuewa.
Kahaumia is dead, the title in the
land surviving to her husband Kea-
weamahi, the defendant in this
case.
4. November 18th, 1882, Kalai-
kuewa died, leaving sundry heirs.
5. These heirs sold their interest
in the estate of Kalaikuewa-three-
quarters to r. VIM. Aylett and one
quarter to Kuhiau. Aylett and
Kuhiau, being now tenants in COM
mon of all property owned by the
estate of Kalaikuewa, are the plain
tiffs in this case.
6. October 18th, 1888, the heirs
of w. +. l.. Kalahoolewa by deed
of compromise, conveyed to B. P.
Bishop among other lands the said
Iii of Kaakopua, conveyed to said
Kalahoolewa by Ruth Keelikolani,
the deed reciting that said B. P.
Bishop was the residuary legstee of
said Keelikolani, and that the deed
of compromise was for the purpose
of settling all disputes between the
heirs of said Kalahoolewa and the
estate of said Keelikolani in and
concerning the meaning of the said
deed of January 30th, 1871, from
Keelikolani to Kalahoolewa and
otherwise.
7. April 10th, 1891, the trustees
under the will of b. z. Bishop
made deed to Keaweamahi, de-
PENDANT in this case, of thespremises
in dispute, claiming title to convey
by reason of and through the said
deed from the heirs of Kalahoole-
wa to B. P. Bishop.