The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1905-01-31
HER SILENCE
/. COMES DEAR
Regard for ner chiefly
friends Costs Miss
Peabody Land.

to the Supreme Court by writ of error
10 the Circuit Court of the First Cir
cult upon her claim to certain land
against the Bishop estate. At 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.
1t was all 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 administers
tor. The land was bought by Ruth
Eeelikolani whose devisee, Bernice
Pauahi Bishop, devised 1t to Ave 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 Pauahi 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
u unanimous opinion written by JUS
tice Hartwell, that the verdict for de-
PENDANTS, trustees of the Bishop es-
tate, was properly directed, the plain
tiff having had the opportunity and
apparent duty to speak," that her ST.
Ience under the circumstances equita-
bly, estops her from now presenting her
claim: also that her motive for not
presenting her claim was immateriai,
the consequences being the same as u
she had intended that her silence
should lull those concerned into 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 l<anaina's maternal grandmoth-
| err, Moana, and her four husbands. un-
der the act of 1874. to quiet land titles.
resulting In an adjudication of heirs.
The suit was brought by Kalakaua
| against w. G. Parke. administrator,
and Is reported In Sth Hawaiian. In
n 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 cuJn Of ha on1 10
disagreement of heirs regarding n d.
| vision, and sale was ordered and
held, the piece in question being bought
by Princess Ruth ms already stated.
Miss Peabody. who claimed the land
by devise from one Kahookulimol<u,
who, she alleged. was one of the heirs
at law of Charles Kanaina-throughout
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 We're
called to come in This she knew be-
cause 1t was matter of Importance
/, in those days, and she admitted that
the whole proceedings were a matter
of notorlety 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 %Ha
the Kamehamehas, but now they were
[ dead she was coming in to claim her
rights Her relations with Ruth ana
. Pauah were of a most intimate char
3 acter. She did not stop others from
1 making claims. but kept hers 10 her
q self. She kept her claim from Ruth
e because she did not want to set II up
s against her. II Ruth and Pauahi had
!, made no claim against the estate OF
e Kanaina she would certainly have put
;. in her claim. Her conduct was out OF
IS respect to these two chiefs. When she
g heard that the doors were to be shut
d she brought suit against many per.
- sons, and thought nothing about the
i purchasers at the Kanaina sale and
l. how they would suffer. In her testi-
= mony plaintiff emphatically denied that
y she intended to deceive or mislead any
e one. or that other claimants should act
o without knowledge of her claim.
It e. C. Peters appeared for plaintiff;
s Kinney, Mechanism & Cooper, S. II.
: Derby and Holmes & Stanley for de-
PENDANTS.
Il THE DREDGING CONTRACT.
: The Hawaiian Dredging Company s
@ claim on a contract against the Super
n intendent of Public Works was again
II before Judge Robinson yesterday aft
- ernoon. Superintendent Holloway was
II on the stand, but objections to what
Mr.. Cathcart intended to prove by him
were sustained. Mr.. Cooper with
> whom Messrs. Derby and Wilder Were
associated for plaintiff. moved fol-
"a judgment, but Mr.. Cathcart said he
In had not had an opportunity to argue
70 The case on its merits, and at his re.
10 quest the hearing was continued. II
lHarfI la n.A A ". la.,.