The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1894-04-21
OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUDD, CD

OPINION or THE COURT BY JUDD, Cd.
This is an action Of ejectment TO
recover possession of land at Hoaeae,
Eva, Oahu, granted by Royal
Patent number 7S3 LAND Commits
sion Award S991 TO one kahoowell-
well The case was tried at the last
November Term o. the Circuit Court
First Circuit and the jury returned
a verdict for the plalntIH with one
dollar damages. The case comes TO
Us on exceptions to the verdict as be-
ing contrary TO the evidence. 1t ap-
pears by the evidence sent up that
ka.hooWeliweE, q native Hawaiian,
the, Patentee died interstate IN 1858 of
the, small pox which was epidemic
that year He had been married IN
1914 TO one Kahana (wl u native and
there was born OF her during the
coverture a daughter famed Anehe.
This daughter was said by witnesses
80 be a half white, but the trial
Judge properly charged the jury that
Il she was born during wedIock the
Inference would be thar she was the
child OF Kahooweliweli. No exeep-
ton was taken to this ruling. At
the time OF Kahooweliweli's death,
his daughter Anehe was very
Young child, Just able TO walk and
talk. She was taken charge OF first
bv Z woman named Mua and then by
relatives of her mother who lived at
Waial1la, and she finally married one
Manuel Sylvia, known among natives
as "Pila-. She had by him the
plaintiffs. Manini, kalike, Malta. and
Antoine Kaaha There is no EVIL
denee that Auehe lived on or exer-
cised ownership over the land
Kahooweliweli left also two brothers.
Kukahoe and kepoe, VINO lived on
the land during the lifetime OF their
brother and continued there after
his death In 1865 Anehe, then
married to Manuel Sylvia, applied TO
the Probate Court for letters OF adj
uainistrasion on the Estate of hahoo-
weliwelI This was resisted by ke-
poe In a plea by which, among other
things, he alleges that he was ID
possession of the land, claiming IL as
his own. and that he and his brother
Kukanoe had been IN possession for
twelve years and that there was
nothing Of the estate of the decedent
TO administer upon. The petitioner,
Anehe. thereafter withdrew her ap-
plicatIon. kepoe was taken With
Ieprosy and was removed TO the
Asylum at MoIokai IN 1875 and on
the 18th May, 1876, made deed OF
this land to the defendant, who was
a connection of his, called a 'keIkl-
Defendant claims THAT his possession
of the land was not Interrupted since
that time until sometime N 1877
when the plaintiff ManinI began
building a small house on the land
which structure defendant tore down
and removed. Whether this posses
sion was proven or not makes no dlter-
ence. for the period from the date OF
the deed to defendant and his pos
session of the land under it to the
time of the bringing Of this action IS
but eighteen years. which Ii not suthcl-
entity long under the statute OF limit
ations to succeed as a defense The
Court properly charged the jury IN
substance that If they we're satisfied
from the evidence that the piaIntlds
were grand children OF the patenfee,
through Anehe, patentee's daughter,
they need net show that they or
their mother had been II possession
of the land within twenty years, II
no adverse possessiou was shown
The case then Turned upon the cues
ton of kepCe's possession oeIcre
that. OF the Observation-Disclosures II
was adverse and continuous, or not
Here the evidence was conflicting
On the part OF the Defendant, the
fact that Kepoe pleaded II the Fro
I1at, Court that he had possession or
the land Is evidence of his assertion
of that fact. but as the plea was not
proved and the application Tor ao-
-niuistration was voluntarily With
Drawn by Anehe, there being no
i11dpmant of the Court upon the plea,
II was not conclusive evidence or the
Ugssession being adverse There Is
evidence on the part OF the plalnblHs
that Kepoe's occupancy merely con-
tinued as it had begun as broUher
Of the decadent, and was not neces-
,s,-ilv adverse TO the daughter
4nebe. also that 1t was not contInu-
ous. but that it was OF the nature OF
occasional cultivation OF the lands Dy
tenants upon shares
The plaintiff BIanini produced the
original patent for the land ana 0he
marriage certificate Of the Patentee
with Kahana, who said that ne re-
eeived them from his mother Anehe,
who said that they were given ner ny
Kepoe. This evidence was adn u
without objection and the coufO
charged that the returning OF tpe
tide papers to the plaintiffs mother I
after tlle case in the Probate Court
would be evidence tending 70 prov
a break In the chain Of possession.