The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1904-07-26
Justice HartWeII
Meets an Old
Friend.
Writes Opinion in Case
He Sat On Many
Years Ago.
PaIoIo Water Case Decided After
Hearing But One
Side.

BY unanimous opinion, written by
Justice Hartweil, the Supreme Court
denies a writ of scire facias applied for
by r. Maka in the rather ancient case
of Punilama VS.. Mele and Maikai-
Castle & wilmington appeared for petit
toner The writ was wanted to issue
to Mele. an aged native woman, ito
show cause why a certain informal
judgment made by this court November
20, 1868. should not be formally entered
and execution thereon issue against
Mele for the possession of certain land
in Honolulu described in the petition
When the judgment was given the
court was constituted by Chief Justice
Allen, Justices Hartwen and Austin,
and the judgment was signed by the
late Justice L. McCully. at that time
clerk of court. It read: The court by
Justice Austin rendered opinion, as YER
dict. giving judgment to the plaintiff
for the land. but without damages"
After the passing of a generation,
Justice Hartwell comes again to the
bench-the sole survivor of the worthless
above named-and meets the same old
case. In the meantime the Supreme
Court of Hawaii has passed through
several organic changes and many COM
pIete changes in the personnel OF its
members.
It was recited in the petition that no
formal judgment was ever entered, that
subsequently TO the record above quot
ed Punilama conveyed his interest to
Maka, the petitioner, and that Mele
continued, after the Hawaiian friendly
fashion, to live in rooms on the prem
ises without paying rent other than oc-
casional water rates until within year
past when she. under the advice Of
others, first made two claims that she
had a right to the land: first, that
she had a right to the whole land under
deed from Punflama, being the same
deed adjudicated TO be void in this ae-
ton; and second, that she had a right
to live there on account Of long resi-
dence; and being notified, declined to
remove from said land" It was further
stated by the applicant that Makai, the
other defendant, was dead.
The court denies the application be-
cause the application itself shows that
the surviving defendant in the action
claims by adverse possession, and a
plea OF the statute of limitations in
proceeding for a writ of scire facias is
good in law if sustained by evidence
In the body of the decision, conclud-
ing. the court says: LAS this court
has not jurisdiction to entertain such
plea. which requires a jury trial. the
application for the writ must be denied,
and it is ordered accordingly.
HAD NO CASE.
After hearing argument only from the
opposition, presented by D. L. whiting
ton, Justice Hartwen yesterday deIiv-
cred a short oral opinion OF the Su-
preme Court dismissing the plaintiffs
application for a rehearing of PaIoIo
Land & Improvement Co. vs. Wong
Kwai and others. This is the some |
what celebrated water rights case that /
Mrs. Emma NJ. Nakuina. Commissions
er Of Private Ways and Water Rights, !
spent many weeks in trying. Her deci- |
sion was confirmed by the Supreme /
Court with some notifications, but the /
plaintiff made this application for a /
reheartng- T. McCants Stewart and /
Lorrin Andrews were attorneys for the +
plaintiff and. upon the decision being /
rendered. Mr.. Stewart said:
The clear argument OF Mr.. Withing- I
ton could not be improved upon It .