The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1906-01-23
LAND CASE
TWICE LOST.
Kapiolani Estate Wins
Again Against
Thurston.

| Again the Supreme Court has decid-
| ed against the defendant in the eject
ment suit of Kapiolani Estate, Ltd,
| VS.. Lorrin A. Thurston 1t was heard
| on exceptions from Judge De Bolt and
| a Jury, a verdict for plaintiff in new
trial having been rendered. Justice
Hartwell writes the unanimous opinion
of the appellate court, overruling the
exceptions. w. A. Kinney and S. H.
Derby Chimney, McClanahan & Cooper
on the brief for plaintiff; D. L. With
ington Castle & Wilmington on the
brief for defendant. The syllabus re-
Iates the facts of the controversy and
the grounds of the decision it being as
follows with the names here extended
from the initials as given by the court:
"PIaintiff's title was under a convey
ance of June 20, 1874, from Kahoopuipuf
to the king. of lands at Waimanalo
and at different places in Honolulu
in one of them sold to Okuu, with
whom Kahoopuipui was then living as
his wife.
After the kings death Okuu, claim
ing as husband and heir of Kahoo-
puipui, brought ejectment against John
A. Cummins and obtained a verdict and
judgment for two apanas of the Wal
manaIo land leased to CummTns by the
Xiv OK (nKn1I'Sl njapa n
heir, Leialoha All wished w. r. Castle
to take charge of her lands. Before
taking her deed of trust he (Castle)
called upon Queen Kapiolani to ascer-
tain whether she claimed the rest of
the lands conveyed by Kahoopuipui
and, after talking with her of the Cum
minis suit and the Waimanalo piece
asked Do you make any claims to any
of these lands?' and she said, L have
no claim whatsoever, make no claim on
the lands He said he explained to
her that Leialoha wanted him to act
as her trustee and he did not like to
go into it if there was a lawsuit in
that he, relying on her state
ment, took the deed of trust and after
ward, for $4,000 conveyed this land to |
the defendant (Thurston) with cove |
nants of warranty. |
1T was his impression that he talk |
ed with the queen doWager Specificai- |
y about the different lands in the Ka-
deed, but he could not say |
hat he did so or recollected any par
ocular conversation about either one
After some talk she expressed some I'M
of what / was talking about,
nen L told her that it was Okuus
ands, that Leialoha got these lands
rom Okuu then she at once frightened
lp looked intelligent about the matter
Ne talked quite awhile about these
)kuu lands. She understood at !
hat time the whole thing, and that
he had no interes1 ir tho-a lands ana
he SO stated
Held: This was not the case of a
buyer, induced by the
ueen's statement to eXpend :norey to |
purchase the land Or for improvements.
IS trustee he was not obliged to ex-
end his own money or incur obliga-
ions in defending suits for the land.
lie did not inform the queen, and she
ould not have supposed that he
bought of conveying the land with
ovenants of warranty which a trustee
never required to give. If her state
lent was a promise or expression of
attention not to claim this land it was
OF an eStOppel The evidence is too t
ncertain to justify the inference that s
he knew that w. r. Castle was talk
lg to her of any other lands than
nose which Okuu owned or had obtain q
by his judgment, and was not such c
5 reasonably justified a prudent man, G
l reliance thereon, to convey the land e
ith covenants of warranty. @
he judgment against the tenant is g
Ut conclusive in this case upon the G
vner, nor does it make Okuu's mar t
age, decided in that case, res judicata h
this case. If one wishes a judg- f
ent to bind the landlord he must a
AXE him a party. This is true in this Il
Use although the administrator of the
ng's estate, if acting under a power a
attorney from the queen and not h
administrator, retained counsel to h
.fend the case. d
The judges notes and charge at the
ial of Okuu's case are not evidence +
the testimony of Okuu and other h
illnesses since deceased, nor as show
g declarations of pedigree. To meet q
PENDANTS evidence that Okuu and y
We're reputed to be living S
wedlock the plaintiff could show ST
cir reputation of living illicitIy. Rep
alton at the court, where Okuu was
e OF the retainerS, was admissible | V,
lie fact that kahoopuipui's church l.
PEELED her from membership for her | II
lawful mode of living was not evil s,
nee and ought not to have been ad- r
tied. but in view of the other evil in
nee upon that subject the error does w
[ require the verdict to be set aside" p,
-