The Hawaiian gazette., 1906-01-23
LAND CASE
Twice LOST


Again the supreme Court has drcld-
"a against th4 defendant IN the eject
mcnt suit Of kaplolani Estate. Ltd.
W. ioffin a. Thurrton. II was heard
ON exceptions from Judge DE Bolt and
a jury. verdict Tor plaintiff In new
trial having been rendered. Justice
Hartweil writes the unanimous opinion
Of the APPELLATE court. everything the
exceptions. w. A. Kinney and T. ~.
Derby (kinney. McClanahan a. Cooper
| on the brleO for plaintiff; ID. l. WITH
ington castle a. Wilmington on the
brlcD for defendant. The syllabus re-
lates the facts Of the controversy and
the grounds Of the decision. Il being as
follows with the names here extended
from the initials as given by the court;
Plaintiffs title was under a convey
ance Of June 20. 1874. from Kahoopuipui
to the king OF lands at Waimanslo
and at different places In Honolulu
under four royal patents less n portion
In one of them sold to Okuu, with
whom Kahoopulpui was then living as
his wife.
After the kings death Okuu. claim
| ing as husband and heir of kahoo-
| pulpul, uIouBhl tJtclilltlil hbdluSl Jouu
A. Cummins and obtained n verdict and
judgment for two apanas OF the Wal
manaio land leased to Cummins py the
kings trustees. His (okuu's) niece and
heir, Leialoha Al, wished w. II. Castle
to take charge OF her lands. Before
taking her deed of trust he (Castlel
called upon Queen Kapiolani TO ascer-
tain whether she claimed the rest OF
L.. l.. n L.. u .a....I
and, after talking with her OF thu Cum
Minis suit and the Walmanalo piece
asked DO you make any claims 10 any
OF these lands" and she said. i have
no claim whatsoever, make no claim on
the lands He said he explained to
her that Leialoha wanted him 10 act
as her trustee and he did not like to
go into II II there was q lawsuit In
VOWED; that he, relying on her state
ment. took the deed of trust and after
ward, for $4,000. conveyed this land TO
the defendant (rhurston) with cove
nants of warranty.
1T was his impression that ne talk
ed with the queen dowager specilical-
~ about the different lands In the Ka-
hoopuipui deed, but he could not say
that he did so or recollected any par
tlcular conversation about either one
After some talk she expressed some UNI
certainty of what / was talking about,
then l told her that It was Olvuu's
lands, that Leialoha got these lands
from Okuu, then she at once frightened
up, looked intelligent about the matter
We talked quite awhile about these
Okuu lands She understood at
that time the Who'll. thing, and thai
she had no irteres. n tbo.- lands ANA
she so stated
Held: This was not the case of a
prospective buyer, induced by the
queens statement to eXpend .norey to
purchase the land or for improvements
As trustee he was MOI obliged TO ex-
pend his own money or incur ooliga-
tons In defending suits for the land
He did not inform the queen. and she
: could not have supposed, that he
thought of conveying the land with
covenants of warranty which a trustee
is never required to give. If her state
ment was promise or expression ~
} intention not to claim this land, IL WIS
, not an estoppel The evidence is foo
|, uncertain to justify the inference that
she knew that w. II. Castle was talk
/ ing to her of any other lands than
|, those which Okuu owned or had obtain
: ed by his judgment, and was rot such
, as reasonably justified a prudent man,
In reliance thereon, to convey the land
with covenants Of warranty.
, '.he judgment against the tenant is
not conclusive In this case upon the
, owner, nor does 1t make Okuu's mar
rage, decided in that case. res judicata
!, in this case If one wishes a judg-
ment to bind the landlord he must
make him a party. This is true in this
case although the administrator of the
, kings estate. IL acting under power
OF attorney from the queen and not
as administrator, retained counsel to
: defend the case.
THE judges notes and charge at the
trial of Okuu's case are not evidence
OF the testimony of Okuu and other
witnesses since deceased, nor as show :
; ing declarations of pedigree. To meet
: defendants evidence that Okuu and
Kahoopulpui were reputed to be living
[ in wedlock the plaintiff could show
their reputation of living illicitly. Rep
utation at the court, where Okuu was
) one of the retainers, was admissible
The fact that KahoopuipuPs church
} expelled her from membership for her
unlawful mode of living was not evil
dence and ought not to have been ad-
, United, but in view OF the other evil
! dence upon that subject the error does
, not require the verdict to be set aside"
It'd
nRr0l nrur a00nesIr,1