The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-05-08
OPINION OF THE COURT BY PERRY, ].


This is an action instituted in the District Court of North
Kona Hawaii Plaintiffs declarations incorporated in the
MONS hat the said defendant possession of shares
in the Houaoa and by virtue of lease made
between D. Kahao attorney for S. H. Petero alias s. d.
P Kaawaiaopuna and the defendant dated June U.s. 1885,
which the said defendant holds said premises unlawuly and
against the rights plaintiff Wherefore the plaintiff asks
Judgment of this for the of said and
costs hereof" Defendant demurred the ground That he
complaint does forth facts sufficient main
acton and also filed document intended evidently
plea the jurisdiction and reading Comes defend
Nee L. Scott by her husband and agent NJ f. Scott and
asks the render judgment the question of whether
should take cognizance of this action set forth in the
plant Both the demurrer and the plea overrued and
after further proceedings judgment rendered for the plain
tiff Defendant hereupon appealed to this court on the follow
ing points Il That the magistrate erred in overrulng de-
PENDANTS demurrer and requiring plaintiff amend the
complaint That the magistrate erred in ruling that the
complaint forth sufficient confer jurisdiction in Dis
Courts g. That the magistrate erred in admitting evil
dence establish facts avered in the complaint f. That
the admitting evidence documentary copy
without Identification certificate that the copy
The demurrer should have been sustained The declaration
defective in several particulars The action was evidently
Chapter LOG of the Civil Laws of 1897 but the plaintiff has
sufficient the relief prayed give
the District Court jurisdiction. 1t is alleged that the ea
ton of landlord and exists has existed between the
parties the action how such tenancy created whether by
lease by paro how terminated whether by eiux of
tame by of any forfeiture by statutory notice
quit All these matters necessary be forth in order
disclose canse of action.
The argument for the plaintiff is that alleging substance
that the defendant possession of the land in question
which he holds unawfully and against the right
plaintiff, he has fully complied the requirements of the
statute and that the specifically provides mo other
declaration shall be recognized The argument based
the statute, advanced Coey D. Manele Haw
154 With reference the court quoting Sections 939
Gas amended and $40 Of the Civil Code NOW Sections 1879
and 1850 of the Civil Law said pages and 49, ut
is contended by the plaintiffs that was under no
necessity of setting forth his complaint that the defendant in
this tenant of the plaintiffs what manner the
defendant holds under the plaintiff statute Secton
94o enact that the defendant shall be to answer
the complaint of the plaintiff that the defendant is in DOS
session OF the lands enenen describing them which he
holds unlawfuy and against the right plaintiff and no other
declaration shall be recognized and therefore argued that
simple declaration OF illegal holding without averrn
hold tenancy only all that is required but
declaration is not to be recognized.
But the whole gst of the complaint consists in the fact
that the defendant entered into the premises some way as
tenant
The district magistrates have right try the titles in
land and only acquire right in this case if acquired at
all by reason OF tenancy The complaint this differs
respect from that used ordinary action of eiectment
and the magistrate the face no Jurisdiction the
lines quoted by plaintiffs counsel apply whole enactment
and are not to be taken as standing alone
Now ordinary summons in a common civil process
spoken of in the section above forth cause of
action and describes with sufficient particularly to appise the
magistrate of his jurisdiction and appe the defendant of
what has got defend It is therefore, that the