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

on December 10, 1915. By See. of
the act creating the commission its de-
cisions were only subject to appeal to
the supreme court, and IN the absence
of such appeal were final. 1t considered
equitable claims as well as legal R. l.,
PIP. 1869, 1135), so far as those terms
could be applied to the kind of titles
heretofore existing. Among the bene-
fits to result from the awards, the COM
mission laid down and the legislative
council approved and enacted: All
parties having been cited before award
ing, there can be no counter claims to
the same piece of land after award, ex-
cept on appeal, and such appeal cannot
be taken except by party who has
presented his claims to the Board. -
Principles of Land Commission, R. L.,
p. 1177.
Every consideration OF history and
policy seemed to add weight to this ex-
press statutory enactment, and in every
case since the land commission in which
the validity of one of its awards has
been questioned the award has been
held conclusive against every form of
attack. Even before the claim now in
question had arisen the court, in 1851,
had refused to go behind a land com
mission award and receive evidence OF
its having been obtained by fraud, the
court saying:
''The Land Commission may have de-
cided wrong, but if so, Gill or Kalua,
both of whom had notice of the award,
could have appealed to the Supreme
Court, agreeably to the statute in such
case made and provided. In that Court
Z haT CHI of
title, or anything else affecting the
case; but it cannot be done here, under
the circumstances. If we are to go
into these cases anew, treating the
awards of the Land Commission and
the Supreme Court as nothing, then
there is no security for any man IS real
whole kingdom will be afoat.'' Ku-
kiiahu V. Gill, l Haw. 81.
In 1888, Kalakaua, then king, and
Kapiolani, his wife, filed bill in equity
in regard to certain lands claimed by
Kapiolani under one Kaunuohua who
had procured awards reading 'To Kau-
nuohua for W. L. Moehonua,' alleging
that the latter name had been fraudu-
lently and enormously inserted, Moe
honua not being a claimant before the
land commission and no evidence hav-
ing been offered in his favor. In sus-
tanning demurrer, the court said:
FWe are not to assume after this
lapse of time that the Land Commission
had no authority for issuing the award
they actually did issue. 1t was I'M
doubtedly an award in favor of Moe
honua. The failure to record evidence
to sustain 1T does not vitiate it, al
though if the question were opened it
would be provable against it, Kala-
kaua ct al, V. Keaweamahi ct al,
Haw. 557.
In a case shortly after this, upon a
bill of equity to declare a trust, it ap-
peared that the heading of a land com
mission award was "Mahuka and
Kaai,'' but the land was awarded to
:" Mahuka's The evidence before the
land commission was introduced to
show not only that the witnesses had
testified, but that the claimant Mahuka
had specifically admitted, that his
brother Kaai had equal rights with him
self. The court held the award to Ma
huka conclusive, saying:
"'The law in this case, respecting the
examination of proceedings before the
Land Commission, has been placed by
this Court, in the cases of Kukiiahu VS..
Gill, l law 81, and Bishop VS.. Mama
kalaa, Haw. 23S, on a foundation
which cannot be disturbed. Every year
which passes increases the force of the
reason which demands that the adjudi-
cations of the Land Commission be not
now re-examined. Kaai V. Mahuka,
5 Haw 354.
The next case involving this point
was the application for the probate of
an alleged lost will of Kakauluohi.
premier of the kingdom, which came
before Justice Judd in 1876. The cir
cumstances were similar to those in the
Estate of Kaniu, that is, an alleged will
made prior to the land commission, and
the court held the award of the land
commission, made after the date of the
alleged lost will, conclusive against the
right to probate a will which differed
from the award. The court said:
"'But the Land Commission was au-
thorized by law to investigate, confirm
or reject all claims to land arising
previously to the tenth day of Decem-
Der, 1S45, and as the will in this case
vested the property at the date of the
death of the testator (the It'll of June,
1S45), the action of this Commission
in awarding the lands as mentioned
above without the entail TO the surviv-
ors is conclusive against the right to
prove a will now which would divert
the property differently than awarded.
"Their action was judgment of
Court of competent authority upon
matter within it's jurisdiction, it being
a claim for land arising previously to
December 10, 1S45.' Kanaina VS.. Long,
3. Haw., 1872; Kahoomana VS.. Minister
of Interior, Ib. 635.
F'But the case of Estate of Kaniu, 9
Haw., 80, is referred to by the counsel
for the petitioner. In this case Justice
Robertson admitted a verbal will to
probate, made in 1843, and although
the land the testator had had been
awarded to Kinimaka, and not to the
devisee. I cannot believe that the at
tention of the learned Justice was
called to this point, or he would not
have thus practically set aside an award
of the Land Commission of which Board
he was az member Estate of Kekau-
luohi, Haw. 172.
Finally, in the leading case of Thurs
ton V. Bishop, Haw. 421, the absence