The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1895-03-01

| " Ii1toh IN the OrlStlct Court OF
! nonolulu OF trespass gI4dre cIausuni
Iregit, Tor digging a d tch On plant ifs
Ianu' the defendant, admitted the
acts complained of, claiming title in
himself and pleaded to the jur sdiction'
denying title Of plaintiff" The statute,
section 10, judiciary Act of 1892, pre-
| scrloes that district courts shall not
nave cognizance If real sctions, Lor
acuons In which the title 10 real estate
snan come In question; Held, IN the
absence OF statute or a rule requiring
more, the plea is sufficient to Dust the
District Court of its jurisdiction.
OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUDD, CT.
This is an action of trespass quars
elausun' tregit, plaintiff claiming
damages for the defendants wrong
full entry upon plaintiffs land at
Kukuluaeo, Honolulu, and digging a
ditch thereon. The suit was brought
In the District Court of Honolulu.
Defendant plead orally as follows
defendant admits the acts COM
planned of, claiming title in himself,
and pleads to the Jurisdiction, depy-
ing title of plaintiff" The magis-
trate sustained the plea to the
jurisdiction and plaintiff appealed to
this Court on the following points of
law:
Il. In a suit for trespass on or
damage to land, even though defend
ant pleads title, the district court
should hear the evidence on both
sides before deciding that the suit
involves title to real estate, and sus-
tanning a plea to the jurisdiction on
that ground.
2. The mere plea that defendant
claims title,' without stating what
he claims or why he claims it, is not
sufficient to GUST the district court of
| Jurisdiction.
8. 1t is only title to land that
district courts ought not to adjndi-
cate; title or right to an easement
should be within their jurisdiction.
Section 10 of the Act to reorganize
the Judiciary Department prescribes
that district courts shall not have
cognizance of real actions, nor
actions in which title to real estate
shall come in question:"
We assume that an action of tres
pass quare cLausuD fregit is within the
jurisdiction of the district courts, if
the adj ddmnuna is within the statutory
limit. Such an action Is not a ereaI
action" nor does "the title to real
estate" necessarily come in question.
But 1t may come in question. Where
the defendant pleads in justification
that the locus IN quo is his soil and
freehold commonly called a plea of
66eruna terenentun1), the title to the
real estate would come in question.
This preliminary question the dis
trict court has no Jurisdiction to
hear the statute forbids it. The
plaintiff urges that the district court |
should have heard the evidence on |
both sides In order to determine !
whether the suit in fact involved |
title to real estate. But, as said by |
this Court IL Coney V. Manele, 4 |
Haw. 157, per Harris, @. j., "the |
setting up title hostile to the plain |
tiff's title, whereby the magistrate |
becomes advised that the defendant |
claims adversely to the plaintiff, and |
not under him, is sufficient to take |
it out of the jurisdiction of district |
magistrates + and if the |
magistrate could go on and inquire
if his title is good he would be pass
ing the defendants title and stretch
ing the authority of the law greatly
beyond what was contemplated"
The cases are not exactly parallel;
that of Coney V. Manele, being an
action for summary possession of
lard, Comp. Laws, p. 274,) the
plaintiff claiming the defendant to
be his tenant. But the question was
the same as in the case at bar,
namely, whether the defendants
plea of title in himself without ad-
duciDg evidence to sustain it, was
sufficient to Gust the district magis-
trste of his jurisdiction. And it was
held that it was sufficient. See also,
in re Kameeui, 6 Haw. $40. But in
this case the Court prohibited the
lower court from issuing execution
in a case where it had heard and
dete rmined title to real estate.
1t is urged upon US that as the
present case claims damages for
digging a ditch. presumably the only
title In the defendant would be an
easement" But the defendant has
not justified the alleged trespass by
q plea that he had a right to dig the
ditch on plaintiffs land, having &C
quired an easement therein. He
does not set up an easement" He
claims title to the land alleged to be
upon and denies plaintiffs
title to the same. We are aware of
the mischiefs that are likely to occur
where reckless or dishonest pleas of |
this character may be set up, COM
pelling parties in the maintenance of
their possession of land to resort to
he higher courts for the pursuit of
their remedies. But We feel obliged
TO follow the precedents Of this
Court and sustain such pleas without
further proof - there being no
statute nor rule requiring more.
That a remedy might have to he
provided was thought Of 10 1879
where the Court remark in Coney V.
AIaneIe, supra, that "if dishonest
pleas should be set up by defendants
1n6nnhtahiv effectnal means will be