The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1898-06-17


the evidence that the piece dispute on the Kaeohe side
Of the bed of the existed date Of the award
in other words that included the boundaries of
Apana then your verdict be for the defendant
Under question whether the stream had
changed course that land the strip in question
belonged eliminated considerations For the Jury
having found plaintiffs under clause these
Instructions have found that the strip question part
Of the kueana There also question half
land which the plaintiffs proved documentary title The
only question then other half assumption
that it part of the kleaa. The plaintiffs had been in prior
possession They had color title; they had possession
under lease from who claimed title the whole kleana,
who held under
half the land and claimed title the whole of it, The
defendant had had possession though he had claimed the
right possession but he had claimed this solely the ground
that the land part the kono land, which the jury
found the did any claim the
kuleana any part thereof Plaintiffs bound prove
good whole Where neither party title
the who the whole has the better right the possession
should prevail party who has been in possession for
siderable period who claims title the whole land under docu
ments pporng convey and actually has good title
undivided half of the land has better right possession than
who has had possession except the possession by force
which rise to the action and who has title whatever
the and claims title merely upon mistaken idea as to the
identity of the land Consequently the requested instruction
above forth properly refused The other instruction,
that given and excepted to- undoubtedly law in the
abstract and the only objection raised that app
a trespaer in he claimed
tended right under circumstances of doubt which justified the
assertion of his claim Plaintiffs claimed that the evidence
defendant respasser STILL supposing that the
instruction given would standing alone be little strong
in view of all the evidence yet taking into consideration both the
finding the jury that the land part the kueana and
the further instruction of the Judge that if the jury found that
the land part of the klean and that plaintiffs had had prior
peaceabe possession, they having also title oneha and cor
of title the other half the verdict should be for the plaintiffs
in the that in regard the alleged change in the
the This left wholly the jury the
ficting evidence and they found for the plaintiffs
Secondly exception allowing plaintiffs
the witness Kammaao direct examination whether he had
previously made statement in regard to the location of the
which made the stand
and exception allowing question put the witness Pahia
what statement the said witness Kamnawaho had pre-
vousy made. The ground upon which these exceptions
based is that party should be allowed mpeach his
own witness. No attempt was made impeach the general
credibity of the witness. 1t that plaintiffs
sci surprised by the witness making the stand
adverse different what he had said previously
Under such circumstances competent the trial Judge
in his discretion allow the question whether the witness had
not previously made inconsistent statement and to allow
proof that such inconsistent had been made See
Civ. L., Sec 1921.
Thirdly, al exception o allowing question be asked
witness the relative plaintiffs and defendants rice
plantations, and exception allowing question be asked
defendant witness whether the land had been put in
his by Wong 1wa avoid suits These questions
objected the ground that they would introduce
which would tend prejudice the jury. Plaintiffs
tend that it had appeared IN evidence that they had taken
steps prevent defendants oIcbe entry and that the first of
these questions proper IN order to show from the size of his
plantation and the number Of employed that failure
I due acqcence but lack of the requisite force
and that defendant simply took possession without resorn
the relying upon superior force rather than upon claim
of superior right they contend also that the question could
have been peudca any way because the showed that
defendants plantation only about and half times
large plaintiffs They attempt support the second of these
questions the ground that of the deense that the
defendant merely the of Wong Kwa and that
therefore the property in his possession but in Wong
Kwa that defendant would produce the lease; and that