Evening bulletin., 1911-02-23

fit while was-arising my being Blind and conveys
the grantee in fee besides other land the land which in
rovey which is described in the deed by metes and bounds
apana of L. C. A. 6545 to IIaaio and containing
81 The following is the declaration IN the deed OBJ
jeced selfservng "Ths is piece of land given
of having lived occupied for long period
than twenty years accordance with law and more than forty
years up the present time and that this land my own
The plaintiff relies the ruling in Mdkehau " hdhe ~
Haw 204 20S dsaowng the defendants question: IN an ac
tion of ejecmen to witness who had been III he employ VI
the defendants grantor whether he did hear any statements
ever made by Kimo who owned the land The court III
overrung the exception to the dsaowance of the question:
said n the first place does not appear that 1t was oee
the sole purpose of giving character to the poseso ana
the second place the witness attention not called se
officially the time when Kmo in possession In answer to
the question stated the witness could well have testified TO
declarations made when kmo out Of Nor was
any offer made by the defendants prove by the witness that
the declarations made by Kmo while he was IN possession
that they of claim of ownership himself such as
that his possession hostile the title of the true
owner The exception to the granting of the plaintiff motion
strike the evidence of the witness that klmo had told
him that he had paid the and collected the rents and profits
during his lifetime overrued narration of past
occurrences and inadmsbe" On the other hand in Garter
Ld 16 Iaw $780, also action of ejectment in which the
defense adverse possession statement of the defendant
while possession of the land made to the lessor of "a OF
land and perhaps including part of the land in dispute
whose eecs in attempting to cultivate portion of the land in
dispute had been driven off by the defendant response to an
inquiry by the lessor why she had put his off, that he
property hers and that David Baker the essor) had
right to it," held to be admissible.
The distinction between clear In the present
the statement in the deed made by the gntor the
time of its delivery and while possession of the land and
has less significance than the which fire.
queny appear of the of the grantor
title being the premises ETC., which, although in no
evidence of the title do render the deed nadmsbe
whole An instruction. if asked would properly have been
given to the effect that the recital merely evidence of the
fact that the claim of ownership made by the granto and
mot offered except coorng the occupation, for which
purpose it admissible" Wigmore Evidence SITS.
thu a,1c o1V
scrbed in the complaint but in view of the conclusion have
reached the it unnecessary whether the record
shows that the land sufficiently identified with that which
is claimed by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff excepted the following instructions given
the defendants request namely The law that those
in possession of land rghtfu possession and those who
claim that the persons in possession mawfuly in posses
sion satisfy the jury by prepondeance of the evidence
that they have good title and better title than the defendants
The Plaintiffs must upon the strength of their
ttle" (2) Ihc Court nstruc the jury that although they
may believe from the evidence that the land in controversy is
covered by the deed under which the Plaintiffs claim yet if
they further believe from the evidence that the defndm and
those under whom they claim have been the honest pe9cabe
continuous and adverse possession of said land paying
the under color of title for Ten Years prior the ns
tuition of this suit they find for the Defendants" (3)
Conveyances of land by in possession evidence of the
hostile character of ms possession (4) Ihe right of the plain
tfs in this the strength of their
title and they cannot by showing defects in the title of
the defendants (5) Holding land under parole gift of fee
of the land for years will give title by adverse pocsso if
it open notorious and undspued CO.. Whe the adverse
claimant has remained in the continuous adverse possession of
the land for the full statutory period necessary operate
bar to the recovery of possession by the the former
quires valid title the land and subsequent break in his
actual possession does not any way affect his right the
tnuy of has reference the the
ming and is not necessary after the bar has attached
These the usual instructions in actions of ejecment in
which the defendant seeks nvadate the plaintiff title and
does attempt show Independent title in himself by
adverse possession, whereby he takes affirmative position
placing upon him the burden of proof Kaalhue Crd66e
Iaw 76S ia 1t that the request of the plaintiff the
correctly instructed the jury "Thc plaintiff in this case
has shown you by direct chain of paper title that he the
of the land described in the complaints those documents
prma face evidence of their contents and would vest the
title in the plaintiff subject any adverse possession winch the
defendants might have shown you Where the occupation OF
the land has been with the permission of the in order
that adverse possession may begin it is necessary that
some direct notice be given the that the occuper IS
ho hosle him. But the instructions numbered above,
4, entirely nappicabe to defense of adverse pos
tlon in which the plaintiffs record title is shown and not
sputed by the defendants The effect of inconsistent or con
cing instructions considered in Territory Richardson,
II IIaw 231 237, of trial upon indictment for
bezencn in which instructions applicable to action of
for wrongful conversion of held not to be
nufed cured by instructions appropriate to the and
although in the opinion the motion for rehearng i'll Spa
~, ,:J,J.C n tbo +ooiJ tit