The Hawaiian gazette., 1916-02-08
TEXT Of DECISION :.
B % ..'.I aIotEt ifg-s .,gs,, .tJ1 90.
IN KEANOULU LAND
b. !. CASE IS RECEIVED

\ The, decision Of the Supreme Court
of the United States in the matter Of
the adjudication Of the title. to the
land of the ahupuaa of .Keanoulu, in
Maui, has been received here. As the
case created deal Of interest, especi
ally for those versed in old Hawaiian
titles, IL was carefully watched through
its several stages in the circuit court
Of Maui and here and finally in the
territorial and federal supreme courts.
4 The case just decided was a continue
tiOn Of former case started In NOvem-
Der, 1871, by the heirs of Keaka, whose
forebear was .Hawahewa, close and
powerful adviser and friend of Kane
hameha the Conqueror. A year after
the FIRST suit was brought II was set
tied by the Supreme Court Of the King
dom Of Hawaii and the successors Of
the plaintiffs at that time started suit
again ON technicalities thought to have
been overlooked in former trials Of the
case. .'..,t va, ~ .f.....
1t was heard within the last four or
FIVE years In Maui and this circuit and
finally went 70 the supreme court Of
the Territory, where the defendants
were sustained in their contentious.
The plaintiffs in the suis were Henry
9. Hapai, registrar of public accounts
of the Territory; his brother, @. w. A.
Haps', and, Nelson X. -Sniffen, and their
attorney was. Lorrin Andrews. The de.
PENDANTS represented by Arthur "A.
Wilder, were May X. Brown, wife of
Arthur NJ. Brown, city attorney for
Honolulu; Blanche Walker and John
Walker, the owners and holders of the
land in dispute. 49,. ,is-r- aH.,.
Decision BY Justice Holmes
h The decision Of the federal supreme
court, which was unanimous, was deliv-
cred by Mr.. Justice Holmes, on Janu-
ary 10, and a despatch to the effect
that the case had been decided in ia
vor of the defendants was published in
The Advertiser at the time. The full
opinion Of the court is here given.
"This is a bill to quiet title to an
undivided 29I36 Of the ahupuaa of Koa'
noulu, a large tract of land in the Isl.
and of Maui, Territory of Hawaii. The
plaintiffs claim through the children
of one Keaka other than one daughter,
Paakuku, through whom the defend,
ants claim the whole tract.
"One of the defenses was res judi
cata. The proceeding relied upon as
having decided the relative rights of
the parties was a bill brought in No.
vember, 1871, by the plaintiffs prede
eessors against Paakuku and others, al
Ieging title in Keaka during her life;
devise by her to her heirs, followed
by joint possession on the part of the
plaintiffs and of Paakuku as quasi,
trustee; and waste, wrongful sale
and wrongful lease by Paakuku. The
bill prayed for an account from Paa-
kuku, that the sale and lease be OF
dered to be cancelled as against the
plaintiffs, and that a partition be de-
creed. Paakuku's answer set up a con
veyance of the premises by Keaka Ia
her in fee ana continuous possession by
her since the date of the same. 1t also
alleged that Keaka's will, if not over
riden by the subsequent deed, devised
the land to Paakuku in fee, subject Ia
some merely personal and reVocable
rights in some of the plaintiffs,
HThe case was tried in the supreme
court before the chief justice. On
October !, 1874, a, minute was entered;
THE opinion of the court is that the
petitioners have no title to the lands
Of Kaonoulu aud Kalpapulu and so ad
Judge. There is no controversy about
the title of the land at Waiiuku and
the petition for partition of that land
is hereby granted and decreed accord
ingly.' An opinion fled two days later
discusses the titlL, decides that the
deed alleged by Paakuku is freed from
every suspicion, and repeats the Ian,
guage of the minute. On October II
| II was decreed that the plaintiffs take
nothing by their bill. The supreme
court in the present case expressed the
opinion which, apart from the defer
ence due to it upon a local matter
does not require argument to support
it, that the intention and meaning OF
the decree of October IL was to dis
miss the bill on the ground that the
plaintiffs had not the title alleged. II
therefore affirmed a judgement for thG
defendants holding that the PLAINTIFF
were concluded by the former decree
The only point, If any, that can be
arOued il that In penetal n bill fol-