The Hawaiian gazette., 1894-04-20
OPINION OF THE COURT By JUDD. CT.

OPINION OF THE COURT By JUDD. c J.
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 S99) to one Kshooweli-
well. The case was tried at the last
November Term of the Circuit Court
First Circuit and the jury returned
a verdict for the plaintiff 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
Kahooweliweli, a native Hawaiian,
| the Patentee died intestate in 1853 of
the small po1 which was epidemic
that year. He had been married in
1874 to one Kahana IVY native and
there was born of her during the
coverture a daughter named Anehe.
This daughter was said by witnesses
to be a half white, but the trial
judge properly charged the jury that
if she was born during wedlock the
inference would be that she was the
child Of Kahooweliweli. No e1cep-
ton was taken to this ruling. At
the time of Kahooweliweli's death,
his daughter Anehe was q very
young child, just able to walk and
talk She was taken charge of first
by woman named Mua and then by
relatives of her mother who lived at
Waialus, and she finally married one
Manuel Sylvia, known among natives
as "Pils." She had by him the
plaintiffs, Manini, Kalike, Malta, and
Antoine Kaahs There is no evil
dence that Anehe lived on or eXer-
cised ownership over the land
Kahooweliweli left also two brothers,
Kukahoe and Kepoe, who 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 ad
ministration on the Estate of Kahoo
weliweli This was resisted by Ke-
poe in plea by which, among other
things, he alleges that he was in
possession of the land, claiming it as
his own, and that he and his brother
kukahoe 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 sp-
plication. Kepoe was taken with
leprosy and was removed to the
Asylum at Molokai in 1875 and on
the 18th May, 1875. made deed of
this land to the defendant, who was
a connection of his, called "keiki."
Defendant claims that his possession |
of the land was not interrupted since
that time until sometime in 1892 |
when the plaintiff Msnini began |
building a small house on the land |
which structure defendant tore down |
and removed. Whether this posses
sion was proven or not makes 10 differ !
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 is not suffici
emily long under the statute OF limit
atoms to succeed as a defense. The
Court properly charged the jury in
substance that If they were satisfied
from the evidence that the plaintiffs
were grand children of the patentee,
through Anebe, patentee's daughter,
they need not show that they or
their mother had been in possession
OF the land within twenty years, if
no adverse possession was shown.
To- case then turned upon the ques-
ton OF Kepos's possession before
that of the Observation-Disclosures it
was adverse and CONTINUOUS, or not.
Here the evidence was conflicting.
On the part of the defendant, the
fact that Kepoe pleaded in the Pro
bate Court that be had possession Of
the land Is evidence Of BIS assertion
Of that fact, but as the plea was lot
proved and the application for "a
was voluntarily with
drawn by Anehe, there being 90
Judgment Of the Court uD0n the plea,
il was not conclusive evidence Of tie
possession being adverse There is
evidence on the part OF he plaintiffs
ths. Kepoe's occupancy ni-rsly con
timed as il had begnn - = b-oinfr