Year: 1860

e. X. BISHOP Us. NAMAKALAA and KAHINUKAwA.
Presentation. E H. Allen. G. NJ. Robertson. John H.


This action of ejectment to recover possession
of the norherly part of the house lot premises stu
ated the easterly side of King street. in Honolulu
and particularly described in Royal Patent No. 222
issued to Abner Paki the l4th day of May. 1851.


The portion claimed is enclosed, and separated by
fence from the other portion part of the said house
lot described in said Patent The defendants plead
the general issue. 1t stipulated by the parties that
the Supreme Court in Banco should try the cause.


1t is admitted by the parties that the defendants
in occupation of the premises and claimed the right of
possession and that they had had repeated notices by
the plaintiff to quiz during the last FIVE years. 1t
also admitted that the Royal Patent No. 299 described
aforesaid, issued to Pak who had since deceased
and that the wife of the plaintiff the only child and
heir of Paki.


1t further stipulated that the defendants should
have ia Court all the rights and advantages which they
could have, had they filed bill in equity, for the
veyance TO them Of the said premises The counsel for
the defendants proposed to show that they held the prop
erty by r. at of prescription, alleging that they had
been il undputed possession than thirty years.
That G October, lS47, they had presented claim to
the La I'd Commission and the same heard in June,
1850, and tb&t the award issued to Paki Feb TO-
1851, either iraudulenty, by error the testimony
before the Lan Commission did not sustain the award
TO Paki, bC. sustain the claim to the defendants
and that after P9ki received the award she had
tinued in lrssession adversely to the present time


The for the plaintiff cOntended that the award
of the Land Commission final, and objected to the
introduction of testimony invalidate it. The Court
ruled that it was competent to introduce evidence to
show t.!at the award recorded not the same
agreed upon by the Commission, and that the Clerk
had made error in recording the judgment of the
Commission 1t appeared by the evidence before the
Land Commission that the defendant, Kahinukana, and
Pak claimants of the land in question, and that
evidence introduced to support the claims of each
and that the Board awarded the lot to Pak and that
A.. II
1851, signed by all the members of the board Mr..
Justice Ii testes that he signed supposng it t. be
in favor of Kahinukama of the defendantS-after
discovering the error he applied the members of the
Board to correct the alleged error but they did not
consider it-he then informed Kahinukana that the
award had been made to Pak, and advised her to ap-
peal which, however, she did not do.


The inference is that there mistake in the
cord, for Mr. lis testimony is that he brought the sub
ect to the consideration of three of the Commissioners,
and represented to them the in making the award
which, seems, by their Omission reconsider alter
the award that they regarded it rightfuy and e-
galy made His testimony fully rebuts the presumption
Of in the record and clearly confirms the award
the Judgment of the board. Had it been palpabe
error, assumed they would at once have corrected
it; as they did not it was doubtless their deliberate
Judgment that it should stand The record Of the Land
Commission admitted for the purpose Of cOrrObo-
rating the evidence of in the record, in
the transcript





not a claimant before the Land Commission and for
whose rights evidence introduced, it would be
strong evidence of error and for the purpose of
tanning the allegation of in the record the Court
permitted evidence be adduced and for the pur-
pose of reviewing the decision of the Commission The
Court regard that rs fna and they fully sustain the
position aker in the case of Kukahu VS.. William Gill,
in which Chief Justice Lee says:


60 The Land Commission may have decided wrong,
but if so, Gill Kalua, both of whom had notice of
the award could have appealed to the Supreme Court
agreeably to the statute in such made and provided


In that Court they could have shown fraud, of IT,


tie, anything else affecting the but it cannot
be done here, under the circumstances If we are to
go into these anew treating the awards Of the
Land Commission and the Supreme Court nothing,
then there is no security for any mans real eStae-no
rest for his tle-and the whole Kingdom will be a1oat.'


In this case if the party has suffered by mistaken
decision of the Commission, they neglected to take the
opinion of the Supreme Court which they could have
had on their appeal. By this omission they lost the
right of re-hearug. The rights of all parties far
better subseryed by adherng rgdy to the rules of law
If they are relaxed there is end to litigation and
its burdens With this view of the award of the Land
Commission the Court entertain evidence in sup
port of rights arising from prescription, or adverse
possession prior to the date Of the award Ii will not
be contended that rights Of that character have arisen
since that period.


Even by the evidence of the defendants themselves
they have had every opportunity to present their case
both before the Commission and by appeal before the
Courts Failing do this, and also failing to show
error or fraud in the record the Court clearly Of
opinion that Plaintiff entitled to Judgment with costs


Let Judgment be entered for possession Of the prem
ises as described in the petition of Plaintiff with COSTS


March 26, 1860.