The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1899-02-28


okuu had before that time had possession it, ii
Henry Macfaane got possession of land solely by reason
of the permission granted by Mrs Bishop he grantee
the Kaleiheana Kauaailehua awar in July or Angus,
1878 then the possession held by him by virtue such per
mission adverse and the defense II adverse possession
would not prevail"
The facts dispute As to the position of the
land when Henry NIacarlanc fir,
leased from Okuu and whether had moved The
defendants claim that the present fence the
when Henry Macfarlane formerly leased the plaintiff
claims that Macfarlane moved the fence when lac posses
sion mauka line and built fence which j claim
ed to be the present fence and that this fence
the mauka line by permission of Mrs Bishop the owner
adjoining Okuu land that the strip question belonged
Mrs Bishop and the possession by Henry being
permissivc, adverse possession could run
The lease Henry Macfarlne put in cvi-
dence by the plaintiff in rcbuttal.
The defense put evidence surcbua against the oh
lection OF the plaintiff who took the following exceptions:
On the close of the evidence for plaintiff rebutta
the defense called witness in rebuttal y WALL sur
to whom defendants attorney put question,
checked off and made map of the present of land
occupied by Mrs. Wilder at the seashore!'
The defense also put in evidence maps by Wall
The plaintiff objected the admission this evidence
incompetent irrelevant and proper surrcbuta.
The object of the evidence plot Of the land
held by Mrs Wilder the plot Of the lot a.
leased by Okuu Henry Aacfarane, the change.
that had been made the shore line w other
wise by the
This evidence relevant and competent. and whether
proper admit it surrcbua matter in the sound
discretion of the trial
Further this evidence admissible surrcbua because
of the evidence brought Henry Macfaanes testimony
in rebuta and also that of Mrs. Emma
lated especially to location and bounds
of the fences and fence lines which had been made Henry
Macfarlane The trial did abuse Its discretion
Nina ,LoJ .F.r
in rebuta and asked the following quc
ton MIR Macfarlane said he did remember having
house the Eva side of the house
rect o notE'
This objected by the plaintiff being srrutal
and no foundation having been laid for the question.
The full senographic report this is as follows:
O. Mr. Maefaane said he did remember of having
house the Eva side house Is that cor
rect not.
Objected as 10 being surrcbuttal.
BY the Court Any between referring
the house, will allow will allow question: To which
plaintiff excepted
O. Was Macfarane present any time with YOU
house view of that sdc he
that house
A. Yes SIR Mr. Macarlane house ON account
of land being leased him. he said
that house for and that how
to place.
regard purpose evidence to he to prove
that the witness Macfarane made
time and by doing test his veracy, but rather
prove fact that the house there that early period
that Macfarane knew Macarlane testified
his recollection there such house located.
This does close the rule upon
crOssexamnation former made by him
not distinctly admit that he did make the statement
shown that he did, but before such proof given
proper statutory foundation be laid.
We do not regard the question and objectionable
as to constitute prejudca substantial such
would alter the verdict PERU LMilsf
IIaw. 24S. Rer =. HaWmca, IIaw ESQ
The plaintiff excepted the verdict contrary the law