The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1903-11-03
AN ANCIENT
JUDGMENT.
Offered for Entry
After Many
Years.

under the title of Punilama (w) VS..
Mele (w). a case decided by the Su-
preme Court in banco at the November
term of 1868, just thirty-five years ago.
The judgment then given was against
the defendant Mele and her husband,
Maikai, for the possession of certain
premises at Auwaiolimu, Honolulu,
being a triangular lot with sides 65 X
SO 65 feet.
r. Maka by his attorneys, Castle &.
Worthington, represents the foregoing
facts to the court, also the following.
condensed from his petition: No for
NAL judgment was entered by the
clerk and no execution on Judgment
taken out, but Punilama the plaintiff
and her husband, Awahua, entered into
possession of the premises under the
judgment. Mele, however, continued
to live in two rooms of house upon
the premises. Subsequently to the
judgment the interest of Punilama was
conveyed to the petitioner r. Maka,
who further says:
THAT, as your petitioner is informed
and believes, the said Mele continued
after the Hawaiian fashion (being a
friend of the former owners of the
lanO, to live in said rooms and, so
far as your petitioner Knows without
paying any rent therefor other than
occasionally paying something toward
the water rates. but without making
any claim to any right there, excepting
by the consent of said Punilama and
her successors in title, until a recent
time, namely, within less than one
year, when she, under the advice of
others, first made two claims that she
had right to the land first that she
had a right to the whole land under a
deed from Punilama, being the same
deed adiudcated to he void in this
action; and. second, that she had a
right to live there on account of long
residence, and being notified declined
to remove from said land. That said
Maikai is dead"
The prayer of the petitioner Is that
the court may order n writ of scire
facias to issue to Mele to appear be-
fore the Supreme Court and show
cause why judgment should not be
formally entered in favor of the plain
tiff and against the defendant, and
why execution against the defendant
for possession of the property should
not be issued.
JURY TRIALS.
The trespass case of w. j. Lowrie
VS.. Kalau Kaaikainahaole went to the
jury at lilo a. m. yesterday, but up
till the closing hour of p. m. no ver-
dict had been returned. At the con-
cluslon of evidence on both sides the |
jury asked to be taken to Eva to
view the disputed premises, but Judge |
De Bolt denied them the jaunt.
In the Hagey cure case of Harrison |
VS.. MaGoon and others. the plaintiffs |
case is still on before Judge Rob- !
inson. Yesterday was the third day
Of the trial.
LEGISLATORS WINE BILL.
Suit has been brought by the Ko-
oa Wine Co. against II. A. Jaeger,
4 member of the House of Represen-
to recover a debt Of $2,192.31
FOR goods delivered. McBryde Sugar
Co.. Ltd, is summoned as garnishee.
DEFENDS HIS MARRIAGE.
Albert Christian has answered the
petition of Eliza r. p. Holt, his al
legged minor wife, brought by Annie
Holt Kentwell as her relative and
guardian, to annul her marriage to
him. He denies the guardianship OF
Annie Holt Kentwell and the alleged
of his wife, and declares he
has no reason to believe that Eliza r.
p. Holt at any time has had, or that
she now has any property or estate
requiring the care of either herself or
Of any other person. He says he is
not aware whether or not Eliza Is an
heir presumptive to property in which
,er father has life estate. Whether
this Is so or not, he maintains the
'act Is immaterial in the cause.
Christian declares that on January
TO- 1903, said Eliza r. p. Holt was an
female of the age of II
,ears, and competent physically and
mentally to contract marriage; that
IN that date she lawfully intermarried
With him, thereby becoming his wife,
md her true name Is not Eliza r. P.
Holt but Eliza r. P. Christian.
Compulsion or undue persuasion to
UGH marriage of the nominal plain
if on the part of the respondent, or {
hat of George c. Sea and wife, is l
enied. The marriage was entered {
mo WIFI tnt VI the WO-
mans father, John d. Holt, Sr., and I
n accordance with his wishes and de- G
Tres. s
1t is declared that the suit has been I
rought by Annie Holt Kentwell with 4
ut justifiable authority and "for the ,
urpose of endeavoring to dissolve and I
reak up proper and happy mar h
lage," and praying that the petition +
e dismissed; 1t is finally alleged that {
espondent and said wife are deeply
nd affectionately attached to each .
ther, and that there is no reason
ther legal OF moral within the knowi- 4
dye IL this respondent why said mar
age should be dissolved, or otherwise /,
voided or held for naught." C. w. h
shford is attorney for respondent,
DIVORCE SUITS. {
Daniel Pihenui sues for divorce from l
Pihenui on the ground of T
Judge De Bolt has granted divorce d
} VIM. Z. Hadley from Rose A. Had !
y on the ground OF extreme cruelty.
p. Ball appeared for libellant. Lii