The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1899-11-17


that koioa and kawahalea marredT' ~ Il near"
they married While l living Lahaina with my
husband this Kawahaea and koloa and that
where the decd made kaua wrote out the deed ana
kawahawai acknowledged it. heard that time that kohoa
and kawahaea married Witness testified that lieuu was
dead.
The plaintiff put evidence lst the Royal Patent No 6O75
Ieulu this piece February 1867 l. G. A.
3997 ID, deed from Kooa Kawahaea dated June ID,
1864 the land l. Koo the wife and heir of iieulu
Of Wahee, sell and convey kawahalea This was
proved before Kaaewa then Second Circuit Court Judge 10y
the witnesses the deed March 1863 Kooa having died
the meanwhile and the deed having been duly acknow
lodged. Deed Kawahaea David Hale dated June IL,
1870
Kekehena W testified: was born at and lived there
SINCE know plaintiff and defendant and the land
Makai possession Hale has right it. Heuu
patenee and land descended Kooa his wife; they had
children; Heulu died long ago. Kawahaea koi-
oa husband, and Kooa sold this land her husband kawa-
halea At the time land Kawahaea they
husband and wife Do know what time Kawahalea and
Kooa married Q. Can You tell whether Koliola sold
this land Kawahaea before they married after they
married.! A. 1T looked that way" q. "Were they
living together some time before they were married! a.
| know they living together before they married.
O. State whether not you say for certain whether or
they married ALL whether you present at the
marriage is this simply what know from reputc OF the
MARRIAGE? A. Il don't know not present at the mar
rag but heard it talked about considerably about their being
married. O. did you hear this talk of their being married
after the execution of the deed after kooa sold the property
Kawahaea before thatT A. Il heard they married
first and afterwards heard the land sold by Koioa to
kawahaea"
There was testimony showing Hale, the plaintiff,
p1ayc and had fourteen years had of the
land and since then Maika had possession and cultivated
the land and that he had let it the Waikiki Sugar Com
pany who planted it in
The plaintiff claims that the granting of the sit
l. That the evidence marriage Koiol and Kawala
lea conflicting and it question of fact for the jury
whether the deed Kawahaea executed before after
their marriage
That if the deed to KawaIaea void, yet koioa
being Ieulu she entitled the land and if She
was Kawaalea the time of her deceae and left
children or issue Kawahaea entitled to her interest in
the land if she had no other kindred.
Marriage question of fact and generally for the jury
and had been submitted the jury and they had
passed upon this fact there being evidence of marriage
would disposed the finding of the jury, but
of the second point presented to it will be unnecessary
decide the question of non-suit on this ground
Kolola died 1864 and March 2s 1865; and
far as the evidence shows kindred but her husband
assuming for this purpose that there a marriage).
Section 144S the Civil Code of then in force and
provides that "f shall have been married and
kindred but widow then she shall inherit all his estate;
and the be and leave kindred but her
husband then he shall inherit all her eae
Kawahaea them there being other kindred of KOoa I'M
herited all her
IT is claimed defendant that by Section 1886 of the Civil
Code of 1859 the husband of Kolo entitled any of
her estate that there being issue, the property,
her decease descended her heirs But by Section 144s,
su,ra the husband in such is the heir See Mdked
Nalud, 4 IIaw. 226.
On this view law and the evidence, which necessarily
include questions of marriage nonmarriage the plaintiff
would be entitled o 90 the jury.
The second ground of the motion for nonsut is overred
The action of eecmen under Hawaiian statutes not merely
possessoy action, but it tries the title we'll The Wauku
Smear COMPANY holds under Maikai the adverse
claimant, and IS necessary party The action can I've
maintained against Maka without joining the Wauku Sugar
Company In Wong 4. Kan chm, Iaw. 225.
The exception is sustained The order of nonsut reversed
and the case remanded for a trial.