The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1905-11-11
KINDNESS
REWARDED
Land WilIed to Woman
at KaIaupapa Is
Recovered.

Bv a decision of the Supreme Court
q woman at Kaiaupapa comes into pos
session of a valuable piece of land at
Iahaina which was devised to her by
q felIow-woman at the Settlement as
a reward of kindness bestowed on the
testatrix in her dying days.
Exceptions of defendant in the eject
ment suit of J. A. Magoon, executor,
VS.. Pioneer Mill Co, Ltd, from the
Second Circuit Court are overruled by
a unanimous opinion of the Supreme
Court. written by Justice Hartweli,
with concurrence of Justice Wilder and
Circuit Judge De Bolt in place of JUS
tice Frear. The decision says that
most of the twenty-seven exceptions
appear to be frivolous" j. Lightfoot,
J. A Magoon with him on the brief,
for plaintiff; D. H. Case, with whom
| J. l.. Coke and A H. Crook were on
the brief, and S. H. Derby for defend
ant.
It was an action to recover possess
sion of about one and one-half acres
of land granted September Is, 1851, to
| PuaH. and for $500 damages for it's de-
tention The sole defense was adverse
| possession and judgment was given
| that the plaintiff have restitution and
| possession of the land, and recover of
the defendant $500 damages.
At the trial Magoon filed suggestion
of the death of the original plaintiff,
the widow of Kapakahi, heir OF the
| patentee; that her will was probated,
and he as executor had letters testa-
mentary. Therefore he asked TO be
| substituted as plaintiff The defend
ants attorneys saying they had no OBJ
lection, the court allowed the executor
| to be entered as plaintiff. 1t is held
| by the Supreme Court that, although
| in law the executor was not entitled to
| possession of land. his right in the
| judgment at issue could not be ques-
| toned under the general exception &c
| the Judgment as .'cShtrary to the law
| and the evidence and the weight of evil
| dence." since no ruling had been made
T. on this point of law at the trial and
| the defendant had acquiesced in the
l
| The other controlling point now de-
cided is that the court below properly
refused to grant a nonsuit for adverse
| possession, because a minor child OF
| the widow was living when the claim
| ed adverse possession began and the
| statute does not run against minor
| also because evidence of adverse pos
session of a. house on the premises
| would not include the entire parcel, ir
| which We're six taro patches, unless
possession was taken under a paper
title or colorado claim.
The whole trouble arose from mis-
take of J. w Kalua. He was admin
istrator of Kapakahi's estate an6
bought certain property mortgaged by
| Kapakahi at a foreclosure sale on April
II, 1899 The land now in dispute was
not included in the mortgage, but Ka-
lua, thinking it was, conveyed it or
June 49, 1892, to William L. Decoto, rep
resenting the Lahaina Coffee & Frui
| Co. which in turn conveyed it tC
| Pioneer Mill Co. on August "a, 1900
The widow of Kapakahi went to the
leper asylum on Molokai in September
1890. The child dying between tha
date and the bringing of this action
February 6, 1901, the estate vested il
4 Tie "iuOW, WHO OItu 4NON0IIIDeI 1JUt
leaving will under which Magoor
| was made executor.
Justice HartweH perpetrates the fol
| lowing pleasantly in the opinion: ''TC
) the further evidence in rebuttal thai
the witness never saw the Rev. Pail or
the premises between Kapakahi's deatI
and the widow going to- Molokai, the
| defendants objection that this was
negative testimony, having no bearing
on the case, is certainly tenabIe, bu
| neither does the exception have any
By her will the widow devised the
property now recovered by her execu.
tor to Mrs. Fanny Babcock, a Iiesi-
dent of Kalaupapa, in consideration OF
kind treatment from the devisee
|