The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1908-03-27

| Judge De Bolt handed down a writ.
! of law in regard to costs that is OF
| wide interest among those of the Iega
| fraternity although not of general in
| terest The opinion is on the presen.
| tation of a bill of costs by the plain.
tiffs attorney in the case of Samuel
Noar, administrator of the estate OF
Isaac Noar, deceased, versus c.
Bosse In that case judgment was
rendered by Judge De Bolt for $S5.75
| afterwards cut down after the judg-
ment had been filed and sustained by
the Supreme Court by Judge De Bolt
because of the discovery of a clerical
error.
Judge Stanley appeared for the de-
PENDANT and presented the motion to
have the judgment amended in ac-
cordance with the proper figures, which
was DONE c. w. Ashford, for the
plaintiff, presented the bill of costs,
based on the original judgment, how
ever, and on this presentation the fol-
lowing decision is made:
Defendant moved that the judg-
ment entered herein against him for
the sum of $S5.75 be reduced to the
sum of $5S12 so as to conform with
the opinion of the court. The motion
was granted against plaintiffs conten-
ton.
Plaintiff now presents for allowance
a bill of costs as follows:
Costs of court as charged upon
the clerks docket. $50
4" Attorneys Fees
Attendance upon argument of
motion for amendment of judg-
ment :. ...... 800
For drawing this bill of costs,
copy and service .........-..... Loo
For drawing, copy and service
of notice of taxation of this bill
of costs Observation-Disclosures. 100
For attendance upon taxation of
this bilb of costs. ............. 100
Total :. S1ZS0
''All the items thus contained in the
bill of costs under the title Attorneys
Fees amounting to Sc, are disaIlowed
on the ground thatsdefendant, and not
plaintiff, was the prevailing party.
This ruling is based upon the fol-
lowing authorities:
y r.
& Pr. 221. ct sea-; Grafton Bank V.
Woodward, N. H. 800; The Excelsior
Draining Co. V. Brown, AZ Ind. 70:
Williams v Wright, Wend. 27S; Ladd
V. North, Mass. 513; Favor V. Sar-
gent, 6 Pick. 5; Darlington V. Smith,
s Pick. 419; Gregory V. Reeve, Johns
CfR. 232; O'Flyn V. Eagle. Mich. 306S
Jacobs v Hooker, / Bart II; Rose "
Smith, Haw. 8.
THE item Costs of court as charged
upon the clerks docket, $780, is al
lowed.
March Is, 1908.
"(Sgd-y ]. r. DE BOLT,
First Judge, Circuit Court, First
Circuit
GRAND MAHELE INVIOLABLE.
Land at Waikiki, reserved for his
private use by King Kamehaneha III.
in June 1S4S, figured in a decision rem
dered by the Supreme Court yesterday, |
the case being that of the Territory |
versus Moses PuShi ct al. The. conteA- |
ton of the plaintiffs was that the de- /
fendant possessed no title to the prop /
arty, the defendants setting up the I
claim that as early as 1868 Paakai was /
living on the Land in open, notorious
and exclusive possession, claiming title t
against all the world and that Moses
Puahi, the defendant, was born on the
and in 1883 The court refused to adj
nit this evidence of adverse possession
against the government and gave judg- +
nent for the Territory.
An appeal was made, the courts be-
ng asked to declare the joint resolu
ion of annexation and Sections 81 and
- of the Organic Act unconstitutional,
the defendants brief stated
hat 1.-The Circuit Court of this Terri
DRY are net unjustly reluctant to de-
,lare such nconstEEutionality.~
The decision of the Supreme Court
holds that the censtitutionality of the
Acts are not in question, as decided
n Territory versus Kapiolani Estate,
8. Haw. In overruling the contentious
If the defendant the decision says:
THE question of adverse possession
'unning against crown lands is one
Upon which the language of opinions
n the past cannot be wholly reconciled.
rhe crown lands were those reserved
~ Kamehameha III. in the great ma
lele of 1S4S, and declared by the act
If June 4, 1s4S, to be the private lands
IF His Majesty Kamehameha Ill, to
nave and to hold to himself, his heirs, |
md successors, forever; and said lands
shall be regulated and disposed of ac-
,ording to his royal will and pleasure
subject only to the rights of tenants.
From that date until the act of jan
lary 8, 1865, the crown lands were
ilienahfe by the king. The question
whether title by prescription could be
acquired within this period has never
arisen and could not arise, as upon
10 theory could claim by prescrip-
ion go back of the mahe1e nor ripen
during the sixteen and a half years
between the acts mem
toned, particularly in the absence of
1 statute of limitations
DIVISION OF BUSINESS PROP
ERTY.
report was filed yesterday by J.
F. Brown, commissioner in the parti
ton suit brought by Annie a. Barton
and Helen A. Dunning against the
Hawaiian Trust & Investment Co.,
dealing with a block of Hotel street
business houses. The work of the
was to divide equitably
L. c. Award 100, r. P. CAT, one-fourth
to the defendant and three-fourths to
the plaintiffs This award consists of
. On toI str ed