Year: 1873

] Clainant- rIon Inls uecTee an appear was IakeI


to the full Court in banco. The full Court, Jan


uary term, 1872, decided that the verdict rem


dered was irresponsive to the issue, and new


trial was ordered. This new trial was had in the


January term, 1872, and the verdict OF the jury


was that the claimant was not the adopted


heir of Nakuapa and Puhalahua." Exception:
to the full Court were taken, and the verdict was


set aside for the admission of incompetent evi
dence. The whole case now is submitted to the


full Court on all the evidence, to decide whether


Kaaoaopa is the adopted heir of Nakuapa and


Puhalahua, and entitled to inherit the estate.


The decision of the Court in the January term,
1872, was given by ALLEN, C. j.: 1.-THE majority OF
the Court of opinion that there was prior to the
written law, custom and usage which recognized
an adoption if clearly defined in the contract, by
which the child adopted might be heir to the
property OF the adopter;'' and wIDEMASN, j.: "The
adoption of a child as heir, clearly and definitely
made according 10 Hawaiian customs aud usages,
prior to the written law, 1 hold to be valid under
existing laws and l therefore, &c, &c"


The custom of adopting an heir, by the above de-
cision made the law of the land must be not alone
clearly and definitely made, but it must also be
proven that ii was clearly and definitely made The
very idea of "clearly and definitely adopting an
heir" necesstates the publicity of the act, and all
the evidence on this point given at different times
during the progress of the tends to prove that
the adoption OF heir by a chief was a matter of
notoriety


The question in the case at bar is Was the claim
ant, Kaaoaopa, adopted heir by Puhalahua and
Nakuapa? was she adopted clearly and definitely,
and was there a reasonable amount of notoriety of
the fact?


The brief of claimants counsel fully and ably sets
forth the evidence and argument of his case, and
taking them a basis, and without considering
the evidence on the opposite side, have arrived at
the conclusion that he has failed to establish the
claimants title.


The only witness of the actual adoption is Kapu;
and he is also the only witness who states that Pu-
halahua and Nakuapa living togther at the time
of the adoption. According to him, Puhalahua was
not at the first sandalwood expedition. His evil
dence given at three different times, does not give
me impression completely favorable as to its
reliability in all particulars Kukahiko's principal
knowledge dates from the first sandalwood expedi-
tion. There, in the mountains of Waialua, Puhala-
hua and Kaahumanu told him of his adoption, and
he consequently told the King of it. His recollec.
tion the date of the birth of claimant the date
of the sandalwood expeditions, and the age and
height of the claimant at the first sandalwood ex-
pedition is not of the clearest. Kapu, being Pu-
halahua's head man, would best recollect whether
or not his master went TO the first saudawood ex-
petition. Taking, therefore, his statement to be
the correct one, who told Kukahko of the adoption
at this sandalwood expedition? and what is the
value of the evidence that especial matter unless
Puhalahua himself told him?


From the whole tenor of the evideice do, how
ever, find that Puhalahua and Nakuapa acknowledge
ed claimant as kaikamahne hanai at various times;
but am not satisfied that, if Puhalahua adopted
claimant at the time referred to by Kapu and Kuka.
hike, Nakuapa was in any way concerned in that
adoption. / also find from the evidence that Naku-
apa frequently held out hopes of Inheritance to
claimant. Puhalahua perhaps did so also From
all the lrords used by the witnesses on this head
could not for moment infer that they referred to
foregone conclusion. What Puhalahua himself
meant by them he has shown by his will.


Kapu, at this hearing states that both Puhalahua
and Nakuapa, at the time of the adoption declared
that they adopted claimant as their heir. This,
and this only, is all the proof offered TO sustain
claimants title to the estate under the decision of
the Court cited above. This decision was made
under the impression that this "adoption of an
heir'' was HdWdiian custom. If ever it was such,
Hawaiians knew it, and the witness knew it. Had
the witness given this evidence at the first hearing
it would have carried great weight; its coming at
this late day materially detracts from its weight


There being proof of any notoriety whatever,
and with such frail evidence of the "adoption as
heir" the claim must fall