The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1900-05-14
OPINION OF THE COURT BY WHITING, J.

OPINION OF THE COURT WHITING, J..
Bill to admeasure DOVER defendant before Cir
Judge Stanley which plaintiff appeals The decision
rendered by Judge Stanley is as follows:
The plaintiff in her petition alleges that she the widow of
Joseph Lazarus who deceased June 25 1897 that the
deceased during his lifetime and his marriage with the plain
tiff seized and possessed in fee simple of certain premises being
Lot situated Knau and Lnao Honolulu,
described in r. p Grant No. 3517 issued to said deceased
January 1891; that July 81, 1893, and during their
marriage the said Joseph Lazarus conveyed the said premises
the defendant Alexander Lazarus who is possession
thereof, claiming title grantee of said Joseph Lazarus She
further alleges that she never released her CHIT of dover in
the premises and forth demand upon the defendant
apart her dover and his refusal do and concludes with
that her dover be admeasured and by this
defendant his answer admits the marriage of plaintiff
Joseph Lazarus and the death Joseph alleged
ty the plaintiff He denies that Joseph any
seized possessed in fee simple all of dowabe in
the premises that he entitled any beneficial
interest therein part thereof On the other hand he
claims that the premises purchased by him from the Ha
waan Government and that he paid the purchase price therefor
with his but that the Royal Patent No 351 there
for intended him inadvertently and unntenonalv
taken the of said Joseph Lazarus alleges that
the purpose of correcting said the said Joseph
in July q, 1893 executed deed of the premises him.
He admits that he in possession of and claiming title
said premises in fee simple but denies that he possesses
claims title thereto the of said Joseph Lazarus he
further admits plaintiffs demand upon him for dover and his
REFUSAL also that the plaintiff has released dover right
in the premises but alleges that she and entitled
to any dover right therein.
To this the plaintiff filed formal replication
The sole question to be determined in this whether
Joseph Lazarus deceased seized possessed of dow
able estate in the premises question After considering the
evidence introduced for the plaintiff defendant find the
facts be follows: On 18th 1890 num-
Der of lots including the premises in question were sold
by this government public Joseph lazarus late
husband OF the plaintiff present the sale two lots
Nos 9o1 (the land in question and SOP knocked down
to HIM for the of 1926 and respectively and that
Tor lot SOP he paid the full of purchase price and
but 250 of the purchase price of lot stating at the time
TO James ii Boyd clerk in the Interior Office that the latter
lou qua not belong to him but purchased for person
On January It'll 1891 the records of the Postal SAVINGS Rank
Honolulu show that the defendant withdrew s124o from his
deposit On the day the defendant accompanied the said
Joseph Lazarus to the office of the Minister the Interior and
there paid to Boyd the balance due premises and at the
request OF the deceased the receipt the whole of the purchase
money was made out IN the of the defendant handed
to him (see Exhibit b.
The Royal Patent for the premises was issued on Janu
18th, 1891 to the deceased delivered on March 9Th Tb
Is discrepancy between testimony of Bovd and the
defendant to how that patent was issued in the
OF Joseph Lazarus but in view all the other circumstances
OF the case consider it immaera Shortly the purchase
the defendant entered upon and possession of the premises
and commenced making improvements thereon building two
houses ana laying water pipes and paying the water rates and
taxes thereon to the present day. The house was erected
W him at of 1926 and the house. occupied v him
e was moved ither from other premises leased bv him
from the Bishop Estate. The house was occped nv one
Harry Juen and his wife, granddaughter of the plaintiff as the
tenant as believe, of the defendant monthly rental of
80 1t was claimed by the plaintiff her witnesses that the
defendant occupied the premises by the permission of her de-
ceased husband his undertaking pay the taxes and water
Gates on the land and that the erected on the premises
was pun by the deceased for the of Juen and his wife,
Juen tesn that he under the deceased and not
er he defendant do not believe that this claim founded
on truth uen admitted that the request the defendant he
Drew up lease OF the premises in which was named s the
lessee and the defendant his lessor and that the BODY of x
lblt L. purporng TO be onealf of the lease is in his hand
writing though he denies the genuneness his signature there
to- 1t also appears that the defendant the 9TH Of Nav 1891
took out policy of fire insurance on the building which i de-
scnbed in the body the policy e oneoy frame singled
roof building occupied by tenant" (See Exhibit NJ
On July 9th 1898, the deceased made deed Of the prem
es to the defendant The evidence dsco that about this time
the deceased had instituted divorce proceedings against the
plaintiff his wife and that the defendant witness for his
father The plaintiff claims, falsely as believe that the deed in
question the consideration paid by the deceased to the de-
PENDANT for the testimony then given and that the defendant 50
admitted to her This is absolutely denied by the defendant
It must be remembered in this connection evidence shows
that the lazarus household has been enmy with itself
and that in their domestic crce