The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1893-05-23

family that formerly lived here a,
Militant, because the government had
formally taken possession of the
place; they had no place to live; she
put them over on Kapu'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
Kapu. This is the real truth I'm tel
ling now. / am not related to Mrs
Holt at all. (Maiohao's testimony.
remember Kapu's death; after
the death of kapu 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
/ know Mrs. Holt, / know Keolo,
she lived on the land in question
she is living there under Mrs. Holt,
that is she always told me so. an
living there on the land now; keolo
is not here. 1 am living there as
a tenant of Mrs. Hollis, under lease.
Mrs. Burns testimony
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 anybody has been 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. / have lived there
a long time, / don't know how long;
I was born there at this place. (Lu-
hea's testimony
know when Kapu died. l keep a
record of the births of my children; L
made a record of Kapu's death too.
He died on the night of Christmas
Day, 1870. After the death of Kapu
I had possession of the land, and
have had it ever since. The first L
heard of any claim of Hawai- was
when 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 (keoio)
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. Hollis title, was after De-
cember %, 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
in Mrs. Hollis suit against
Keolo is only small portion of the
land now sought to be recovered by
Hawai- X. George, and therefore it
cannot be claimed that Keolo's pos
session of this small part interrupted
Mrs. Hollis possession of the rest of
he land.
The defendant having been mar
lied during a portion of the time
during which the statute of limita
ion is claimed to have run, counsel
or plaintiff asks how a married
could obtain for herself
title, seeing that mar
led woman's possession Is In law
he possession of her husband. We
hink that the more correct state
nent would be that the possession Of
husband of land claimed by his
7ife is by virtue of the marital rela-
ion, and inures to the benefit of his
7ife. 1t was held in Holton Us.
Whitney, 80 Vt, 405, that where a
husband held possession OF land not
n his own right, but only because it
'elcnged to his wife, and upon
us death the wife took and con-
inued possession and claimed the
and as her own, the possession of
Ter husband would inure to the
,eneft of the wife. But it would be
otherwise il tine land during the
overture was claimed and occupied
" the husband as his own. AS the
Court said in Sawyer Cs. Kendall, 10
Jush., 245, "There was no privity
between herself (the wife) and her
husband. He occupied it during his
life, not by right of his wife, but by
virtue of his own act of disseizin."
We are not aware that a married
woman's coverture, which is con-
,idered in law as o disability, can be
invoked against her. Such disability
IS considered as something she can
invoke for her protection.
Counsel for plaintiff say that if the
defendant held this land on the sup
position that she was the grand
laughter and next of kin of Kapu,
who died last seized, she did not in
hold adversely to the
plaintiff as her occupancy was "by
Now while it is true that
he possession must be under claim
If title it is not essential that there
Ihould be a rightful title. Tyler |
Eject, p. SCI. Gan invalid and de-
ective title, If believed to be good,
will be equally operative with valid |
me in giving effect to a possession
AIKEN and held under it." Id. 1853. !
And some hold that it is not requi-
lite to adverse possession that there
hould even be bona .tfdes Id. 865.
No offer to contradict the evidence |
Il adverse possession having been
made by plaintiff, the jury were not
t liberty to disregard it, and they
must have done so through misad-
,ertence or prejudice. 1t is possible
hat as the contest between the par
les was mainly directed to the ques-
ion of their relationship to Kapu,
he jury overlooked the defense of
diverse possession. We consider
hat this Is a case requiring the inter
nrn ~ /