The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1908-03-07

lam Estate, 1tu., v ~1tSIi~A- -,
65I. The case was remanded, ana de-
PENDANT answered, after which the Iand
now in controversy was sold by the
Kapiolani Estate, Ltd, to the present
petitioner, which applied to the court
of land registration for registered
title. 1t is conceded on both sides that
the court of land registration has au-
thority to determine all questions, both
legal and equitable, involved IN the
title to land, so that the question is
substantially the same as that presented
by the bill IN equity brought by the
Kapiolani Estate, Ltd.
A full statement of the facts leading
up to the supreme court decree of 1898,
as stated in the petition of the Kapio-
lani Estate. Ltd, may be found In the
decision referred to. The record in the
case now before US covers the same
ground with some amplifcations. Preyi-
Gus to the establishment of the land
commission the land, according to the
claim filed by Kinimaka, had been
given him by Liliha. According to petit
toner's contention it belonged to KIM
maka s wife Kaniu, who died IN 1874,
having made an oral will, then good ae-
cording to the custom of the country,
giving the property to her adopted
child, David Kalakaua, then an infant
eight years old. Kinimaka, the hus-
band of Kaniu, reported this will to the
king, according to custom, but the king.
according to the testimony of Governor
Kekuanaoa before the probate court,
disapproved it on account of the tender
years of kalakaua, and awarded the
land TO Kinimaka. Thereafter the
board of land commissioners was estab-
lished and Kinimaka presented and
proved his claims and obtained an
award The land commission records
show that in his petition, resulting in
award 129, Kinimaka claimed three
pieces of land in the same vicinity, the
first as having been given by Lelea-
hano to Hewahewa, thence to Kapiiwi
and to himself; the second as having
been given by Kauikeaoui to Kaniu
andsby Kaniu to himself; and the third
as having been received from Liliha,
Kahikona being the witness. The
testimony before the land commission
apparently applied to one parcel only,
and refers to Kaniu s previous owneF-
ship, no record appears of the witness
Kahikona having been examined, but
all three parcels were awarded, the
third as claimed becoming apana l.,
which is the land in controversy.
Upon coming of age David kalakaua
fled bill in equity against Kinimaka
to enforce trust upon all the lands
owned by Kaniu, claiming two pieces of
land ON Hawaii, one on Molokai, one
half of Keana on Oahu, and certain
houselots and small divisions of land in
and near Honolulu described in L. G.
A. 129 Upon Kinimaka s death Kala-
kaua filed suggestion of his death ask
ing that his heirs be made parties, but
abandoned this proceeding
and applied in probate for proof of Ka-
niu s oral will and for his appointment
as administrator iof her estate.
The probate court decided that YER
bal will made prior to the organic laws
of 1916 could be probated and that the
provision of the old laws that the king
and premier must be informed of all
requests of land did not authorize the
veto which had been exercised by the
king in this case. The will was accord
ingly admitted to probate and letters
testamentary issued to David Kalakaua
Estate of Kaniu, 2 Haw. 80.
though not purporting in terms to deal
with any intervening rights of the real
estate, was a substantial recognition
of his claim, David Kalakaua brought
new proceeding in equity covering
only two houselots in Honolulu award
ed by l.. c. A. 129, R. P. 1902, an
ahupuaa on Molokai and taro patch
on Oahu. The bill was directed against
Pal, widow of Kinimaka, and Richard
Armstrong, guardian of Kaniu, David
Leleo and Kinimaka, minor children of
Kinimaka. Pan and Armstrong an
swered, leaving petitioner to his proof
of all material allegations except those
of record, but averring "that if the
awards have wrongfully been issued to
the said klnimaka, the same were is
sued upon testimony produced to the
Board of Commissioners to quiet land
titles, which satisfied that Board that
the said Kinimaka was entitled to such
award" Testimony for the petitioner
was taken, apparently none being of
fered for the defendants, and the points
made by counsel, including the defend
ant claim that the land commission
award was conclusive, are noted upon
the record under date of August 10.
1858. The next papers that appear are
partial diseontinuance and a decree,
reading as. follows:
''David Kalakaua VS.. Richard Arm
strong, Guardian of Kaniu, David
Leleo and Kinimaka, Minor Children
of kinimaka, deceased.
Supreme Court. In equity. Before
Chief Justice E. III. Allen.
Now comes the plaintiff in the
above entitled cause, and in considera-
ton of certain sums of money paid by
Kinimaka during his lifetime, for his
use and benefit, relinquishes all right
to any and ali lands now included in
the estate of the said Kinimaka and set
forth in the petition in the above en-
titled cause, and discontinue my action
for the same, saving and excepting the
land of Onoulimalo, in the Island OF
Moiokai, and the LIST apana of land set
forth in Royal Patent No. 1902 fled in
the cause, and hereby discontinue my
action, as set forth in my Bill of Com
plant, in the above entitled suit, ex-
cept for the said land of Onoulimalo
and for the apana No. /. Royal Patent
No. 1902, herein above referred to.
(Signed) "DAVID KALAKAUA."
November 2nd. 1853.
Supreme Court Room, Honolulu, Oahu