The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1905-01-31
HER Sill. E:NCE::
COMES DEAR
Regard for Her Chiefly
Friends Costs Miss
Peabody Land.

1
| against the Bishop estate. Al the close
of the evidence in the court below the
defendants moved that verdict in
their favor be directed on several
grounds, including equitable estoppel'
on which ground alone the motion was
granted.
It was al! on account of the plaintiffs
omission to set up her claims as an
heir of Charles Kanaina, in the year
| 1879 when the estate of that person
then deceased-a very large estate
was being wound up by the administra-
tor. The land was bought by Ruth
KeeIikoIani, whose devisee, Bernice
| Pauahf Bishop. devised it to five trus-
tees. Plaintiff made no claim because
of instructions from her grandmother
! that she should not set up her pedigree
| as in any way connected with the ka-
mehamehas. She told no one about
her claim and, after the death OF the
! royal princesses, Ruth and Pauahl, she
| thought no more of the matter until IN
| formed that all of the claimants of the
estate were going to be shut off. She
! did not intend to deceive or mislead
any one.
| 1t is held by the Supreme Court, in
unanimous opinion written by Jus
| tice Hartwel1, that the verdict for de-
| fendants, trustees of the Bishop es-
tate was properly directed, the plain
tiff having had the opportunity and
| apparent duty to speak that her 81
| lence under the circumstances equita-
bly, estops her from now presenting her
claim: also that her motive for nol
presenting her claim was immaterial,
| the consequences being the same as if
she had intended that her silence
should hull those concerned into a sense
! Of security.
| The motive of plaintiff in her costly
reticence, as shown by her own evil
dence, throws an interesting sidelight
on the high regard that was paid to
Hawaiian chiefs, even in quite recent
times.
| There was litigation over the Kanai-
ma estate from 1877 to 1881. A proceed
ing was brought by certain claimants
under Kanaina's maternal grandmoth-
err Moana, and her four husbands. I'M
der the act of 1874. to quiet land titles.
resulting in an adjudication of heirs.
/ The suit was brought by KaIakaua
against W. c. Parke, administrator,
and is reported in Sth Hawaiian. In
a later proceeding the act of 1874 was
held to be unconstitutional, and a new
decree of heirship was made. In De-
cember, 1879 Parke filed a petition for
a sale of the real estate, owing to a
disagreement of heirs regarding a di-
vision, and a sale was ordered and
held, the piece in question being bought
by Princess Ruth as already stated.
Miss Pea body who claimed the land
by devise from one Kahookulimoku
who, she alleged, was one of the heirs
at law of Charles Kanaina-throughou
all the proceedings before mentioned
made no sign of asserting her rights.
She testified that she was living with
Queen Emma when Kanaina died. She
knew there was an opportunity for re-
lations to put in their claims to his
estate, also that the claimants were
called to come in. This she knew be-
cause it was a matter of Importance
in those days, and she admitted that
the whole proceedings were a matter
of nOtoriety throughout the kingdom.
She had seen the notices of sale in
the newspapers.
Yet the plaintiff made no claim be-
cause of the instructions of her grand
mother that she was not to set up her
pedigree as in any way connected with
the Kamehamehas. but now they were
dead she was coming in to claim her
rights. Her relations With Ruth and
Pauahi We're of a most intimate char
acter. She did not stop others from
making claims, but kept hers to her
self. She kept her claim from Ruth
because she did not want to set it up
against her IF Ruth and Pauahi had
made no claim against the estate of
Kanaina she would certainly have put
in her claim. Her conduct was out of
respect to these two chiefs. When she
heard that the doors were to be shut
she brought suit against many per-
sons and thought nothing about the
purchasers at the Kanaina sale and
how they would suffer In her testi-
mony plaintiff emphatically denied that
she intended to deceive or mislead any
one. or that other claimants should act
without knowledge of her claim.
Z. G. Peters appeared for plaintiff:
Kinney, McClanahan & Cooper. S. H.
Derby and Holmes & Stanley for de-
: IeHQantS.
THE DREDGING CONTRACT.
| The Hawaiian Dredging Company
claim on contract against the Super
. intendent of Public Works was again
| before Judge Robinson yesterday aft.
, ernoon. superintendent Holloway was
! on the stand. but objections to what
Mr.. Cathcart intended to prove by him
We're sustained. Mr.. Cooper. with
whom Messrs. Derby and Wilder were
associated for plaintiff moved for
! Judgment but Mr.. Cathcart said he
had not had an opportunity to argua
the case on its merits, and at his re
| quest the hearing was continued. It
| will be resumed at o. IN. Thursday.
| Manuel NasconcelIes, who appealed
| from conviction of drunkenness in the
! Honolulu District Court and was there
fore indicted for the offense. pleaded
guilty yesterday and Judge Robinson