The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1898-06-17
OPINION OF THE COURT BY FREAR. J.

This action of ejecmen Plaintiffs recovered verdict
for the land in question and $15937 damages Defendant
brings the to this Court exceptions.
The parties occupants adjoining pieces of land Puma
Kooauoa Oahu, the boundary between which has
The object of this action is determine
which side Of the boundary certain strip about 81
situated This boundary formerly
the uncertainty arises from conflicting evidence whether
the has changed its course longer constitute
the boundary. Plaintiffs claim under lease of kuleana,
namely, pana of Royal Patent 1859 L. G. A. 1894
Kahaeaahu Defendant is lessee manager under lessee
of the adjoining konohki land The kueana originally
tended to the stream 1t still extends the and includes
the strip in question provided the of the
formerly otherwise Another question
noticed is this Plaintiffs claimed under lease of the whole k-
from Kona who claimed of the whole
eana from Naima but it appeared in evidence the
that Nalima had title to only undivided half in
and consequently that the plaintiffs had title under their
lease only undivided half Thus defendant made
claims for the whole strip the ground was
included in the keana shown by the evidence the change
in the of the the other for undivided half of
the strip the ground that plaintiffs had failed prove
title thereto Plaintiffs had originally taken possession of this
strip under their lease had planted and harvested crop
rice thereon and planted second time, but before they har
vested the defendant crop
tanned possession. Plaintiffs then brought this
possession and for damages.
Defendant relies mainly on three groups of exceptions
First exception the refusal of the trial Judge charge
the requested that shown that
they had the title all the land any
for than onehaf of the premises and exception that
portion of the charge which reads follows The plaintiffs
upon the strength of their title and the
weakness of the defendants title but if the plaintiffs had actual
prior possession of the land this is strong enough enable
hem recover it from repaser that has entered with
any title"
Immediately after giving this instructions charged
follows:
Though plaintiffs documentary title only oneaf
in the kueana STILL if they have HAD prior peaceabe
possession of the whole piece dispute before the defendant
entered upon it. and if the piece is part Apana
kueana and kono land then the plaintiffs
from the defendant all of the property claimed
you believe from the evidence that the piece dispute
upon the Kaku side of the existed
the award Kahaleaahu in other words that included
within the description of that apana, and if you also find that
the plaintiffs had prior peaceabe possession of the piece dis
pue before the defendant entered upon it. then your verdict
be for the plaintiffs and the restitution of all of the prop
claimed But you find from the evidence that the defend
ant prior peaceabe possession of the piece dispute
plaintiffs had possession then your verdict be for
plaintiff for only undivided half interest in the land l. e.
you find further that the piece in question within the