The Hawaiian gazette., 1893-05-23

Mrs. Holt had charge of the land
Mrs. Holt put some relations there, |
msr by the name Of Kane and Hoo
mana, and they brought up some O
her children, Owen and Christopher
and Mrs. Holt has had the land il
possession ever since. (Pua's testi
mony)
After Kapu's death Mrs. Holt hsd
the land; the reason / say that is
Mrs. Holt and all her relatives OF
family that formerly lived here al
Militant, because the government had
formally taken possession of the
place; they had no place to live; she
put them over on Kspu's lot. Kapu's
place was right in sight from where
| / live; Mrs. Holt has had the lot in
her possession ever since the death OF
Kspu. This is the real truth I'm tel
ling now. l am not related to Mrs.
Holt at all. (Maiohao's testimony. }
l remember Kapu's death; after
the death of kspu Mrs. Holt had
possession of this land and we lived
there under her. Keolo went there
to live under Kane; she was living
there afterwards under Mrs. Holt.
(Kahue's testimony
I know Mrs. Holt, 1 know Keolo,
she lived on the land in question;
she is living there under Mrs. Holt,
that is she always told me so. 1 am
living there on the land now; Keolo
is not here. I am living there as
a tenant of Mrs. Hollis, under lease.
Mrs Burns testimoDy)
Kapu IS now dead: after his death
Mrs. Holt had possession OF the
land; she has had possession of the
land ever since his death l don't
know that any body has heen in pos
session of the land who were opposed
to Mrs. Holt. 1 know that some of
Mrs. Hollis children have been
brought up there. l have lived there
long time, / don't know how long;
/ was born there at this place. (Lu
heals testimony
1 know when Kapu died. 1 keep a
record of the births of my children; l
made record of Kapu's death too.
He died on the night of Christmas
Day, 1870. After the death of Kapu
l had possession of the land, and
have had it ever since. The first I
heard of any claim of Hawai- was
when l brought the suit for trial be
tween myself and Keolo. Mrs.
Hollis testimony
1t is clear from this evidence that
the defendant entered this land
openly and retained possession of it
as the heir of Kapu upon his death,
Christmas, 1870; and that Keolo en-
tered the land under defendant. In |
March, 1892, a suit was brought by |
Mrs. Holt against Keolo, who set up
title not in herself but in Hawai- K. |
George, the present plaintiff. The
verdict being adverse to her (Keolo)
we do not think that this suit inter
rupted the running of the title by
prescription. A fair inference from
the testimony is that Keolo, disput
ing Mrs. Holt's title, was after De
cember 25, 1890, when the twenty
years adverse possession by her had
run. Mrs Holt says that she has
never heard Of Kawai's claim until
keolo asserted it in Court in Mrs.
Hollis suit. Moreover the land
claimed in Mrs. Hollis suit against
Aeolo is only small portion of the
and now sought to be recovered by
Hawai- K. George, and therefore it
,annot be claimed that Keolo's pos
ession of this small part interrupted
Mrs. Hollis possession of the rest of
he land.
The defendant having been mar
led during a portion Of the time
Turing which the statute of limita-
ion is claimed to have run, counsel
or plaintiff asks how a married ;
7oman could obtain for herself a
descriptive title, seeing that a mar
led woman's possession is in law
be possession of her husband. We
hink that the more correct state c
lent would be that the possession of
husband of land claimed by his |
1ife is by virtue of the marital rela- !;
ion, and inures to the benefit of his
1ife 1t was held in Holton Us. I
Whitney, 30 Vt, 405, that where a
usband held possession of land not {
4 his own right, but only because it |
elonged to his wife, and upon
is death the wife took and con !
nued possession and claimed the :
md as her own, the possession of
er husband would inure to the
enefit of the wife. But it would be
therwise if the land during the
overture was claimed and occupied I
y the husband as his own. As the =
curt said in Sapyer Us. Kendall. 10 II
ush., 245, There was no privity II
etween herself (the wife) aud her !.
He occupied it during his II
fe, not by right of his wife, but by q
lrtue OF his own act of disseizin.n
w are not aware that a married Il
oman's coverture, which is con
dered in law as a disability, can be y
lvoked against her Sueh disability f;
considered as something she can
woke for her protection. II
Counsel for plaintiff saw that ~ ,h