The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1899-08-24
JUDD, CD, FREAR AND WHITING, j.
PINIoN OF THE COURT BY FREAR. j.

PINION OF THE COURT FREAR J.
This is action of eectment for a piece of land containing
30 acres aoloa Kauai The comes here plaintiff
exceptions only of which that need be considered being
that taken toe verdict the law and the evidence
The plant made a prma facie good paper title claim
ing this piece land of the Ahupuaa of Koloa
veyed by lotamehameha to r. {. Wyie in 1868 by the
executors OF taer to Richardson in 1865 by Richardson
to Mrs A H. and leased by Mrs. Knudsen
the plaintiff fo95 wears in 1890.
The detendat then oral gift and adverse
claiming that moo former occupant of the land Hannah
Moore gave it tine Nakapahu who thereupon took possession
and henceorth med the land his until his death in
1894 and that descended daughter the defendant
uua who had ouy lived on the land with her father and
has lived on snehen the present time The other defend
ant, VIM brown, Iuukia's husband.
The plaintiff by ~ of rebutal then attempted to show that
Nakamhu took oion by permission of holding under
tenant OF the owner that therefore, standing in the shoes
OF the tenant he coU not deny the landlords title or claim an
adverse possession least notice thereof brought the
attention OF the ae and that the landlord had received no
such notice
The appears have instructed jury clearly
the law that adverse hesson could begin to under
sc untluch notice. and the question whether
the evidence was such foud support finding either that the
possession did not begn that that such notice
gwen at least twenty before the of this
action Let us consider t. latter question first.
1t appears that IN 1856 and prior thereto Mka and his
aunt Hannah Moore anome other relatives lived on tract
OF lana containing about of which the land IN dis
part In 1862 aister to the defendant
born Hannah Moore adopd her and either consideration
therefor order haveae child by she asked Nak,
pahu the father to andive land question He
with his family who vnata different place in Koloa then
others until with the assistancof A and others he built
house the of the land in dispute and wall around
lie then, in 1868, moved to this land and
continued there cuvating It'll his death in 1894 since
which time his daughter the deeant Luua has lived there
In 1891 or 1892 the manager of plaintiff corporation
to NakapahuS house and denande5O the defendants
witnesses testified for this land, b manager testified
for another piece of land and Nakahu him. according
defendants witnesses, andha the land his
according to the that the high and he
could pay The testimony of dfendans witnesses
what Nakapau said the plaintiffs nager to the effect that
IandW StrIcEG MT tho
motion of plaintiff counsel erroneousas we believe
Nkaphu never paid rent for this of land There
testimony of little consequence the effect that
he paid the land but tint the paid
by the plaintiff this piece part of its and which listed
whole. About three before the this the
defendant Brown who then lived this lad though
ned to uuka until after the this action sued
the plaintiff for injury his taro due he claimed scarcity
of brought about by the action the plaintiff in
drought, and the plaintiff paid him 500 made claim
the land itself The plaintiff claims that Brown had influence
with the natives and stirring themup against and that the
5000 paid buy him off and lecause had any rights
and that of the money Quoted down
tried Brown brought another
action the plaintiff and then tho plaintiff brought the
present action Practically other evidence introduced to
show adverse 1t thus appears that whatever be
said of the circumstances since 1891 there nothing to
that time show the of the land tlat NakapaEus
session. if originally permve had become adverse His acts
before referabe the original permve possession
there This brings the other question whether the
originally permve hat IS under the owner OF
the land
As already stated Nika and his relatives living this
land in and previously In 1861 Chairman obtained
lease of this and other land from the then Prince Lo
Kamehameha. This cancelled in
of the giving of lease that 1896 of the
and other lands the lessee by the then Irs
Richardson Mka owned another piece land Koloa
nearly the this. When Chairman obtained his lease
of this land Mka who apparently had lived there many years
but had failed obtain keana award for the land preen
this land which had his which kua dry land
agreed he testified with Chairman Swap the land occupied
by him but leased Chairman for the other land owned by him
for the of Charnan lease and after this swap had beer
effected, upon the request of his aunt, Hannah Moore, h
testified he consented Nakapalus living the land
Aka and plaintiffs testified, Mlka INFORMED
the that the lease about and the
and agreed swap back Mka then leased hi