The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1905-09-09
alance as per Sept. payroll
DEED SEEMS NOT
TO Be ON RECORI

| Judge Weaver has delivered a pre-
liminary decision on the report of NJ.
D. Monsarrat, examiner, upon the ap-
plication of Libana de Nobriga for a
| registered title to a lot in Kahehuna,
! Honolulu. which borders on the James
Campbell lot, the Royal School lot, the
James D. Roberts lot and Punchbowl
street. 1t was discovered on examin-
| alton that there was a strip of land
| included in the premises which did not
| appear in the awards and patents Of
I lands on either side. This strip is a
the lands reserved or retained by King
| Kamehameha III, by the Act of June
| I, 1S4S," the examiner says, adding that
he could not find any deed of it from
/ the king of record. 1t was included,
: however in a deed to Robert Clouston,
predecessor of the petitioner, to whom
it had been conveyed by Richard Arm
strong on November s. 1856 The land
has been occupied adversely ever since
by Clouston and those claiming under
Hill INCLUSIVE OI the pellllOlGE.
From June Z, 1S4S, up to the passing
of the Act of 1865 ito relieve the royal
domain from membranes and to render
the same inalienable,'' it is set forth
these reserved or retained lands were
leased, mortgaged, sold and dealt with
by the king and his successors in the
same manner as the lands of anyone
else Different instances are men
toned where native Rawaiians and
others had produced deeds from Ka-
mehameha W to them which had
never been recorded. One was that in
which certain natives and one for
eigner, Bishop Maigret, produced deeds
from that king to them of portions
of the ahupuaa of Wailuku, after
Claus Spreckels had purchased Princess
Ruth's supposed interest in the crown
lands and the Legislature of 1882 had
passed an Act authorizing the Com
miSsioners of Crown Lands to convey
to Spreckels the ahupuaa mentioned
with it's Ills in discharge of all claims
he might have on such crown lands.
1t is shown that the case of Gait VS.. |
Waianuhea decided by the Supreme
Court April A. 1905, does not apply to
this case, where adverse possession be- |
gan prior to the Act of 1865. Although
there are some irregularities in deed
quoted, that of Palena ct al to Robert
Clouston dated June 2, 1855, the ex-
aminer says, 'they are cured by lapse
of time, it being over fifty years since
said deed was made" "a good title
is reported.
A report of Arthur c. Alexander |
court surveyor, is part of the exhibits |
an Judge ! eaver's decision is as fol- |
lows:
Upon reading the foregoing report |
of the examiner and the report of the !
surveyor, with the brief of the appli- |
cant filed ex parte, am of opinion |
that the applicant makes out a prima |
facie case sufficient to base decree of |
title after notice to the Territory of |
Hawaii and an opportunity to be heard |
If deed from the king be presum-
ed, it is a question of fact to be deter
mined after notice to all parties in |
terested, and a finding of fact for this |
court, with an opportunity on the part |
of the Territory of Hawaii, or of the
applicant to submit the facts to
jury on appeal, if so desired.
with these reservations, I concur In
the report of the examiner of title, on
ly for the purpose of enabling the ap-
plicant to quiet the title to the land |
described or Sc much thereof as the
court may find her entitled to in fee
simple.
Let notice be served by personal
service upon the Superintendent of
Public Works and upon the Commits
sioner- of Public Lands. in addition to
the usual notice to the parties named
in the application and the report
!