Bishop v. Kala
| Decision Date | 01 March 1889 |
| Citation | 7 Haw. 590 |
| Parties | CHARLES R. BISHOP, SAML. M. DAMON, CHARLES M. HYDE, CHARLES M. COOKE AND JOSEPH O. CARTER, TRUSTEES UNDER THE WILL OF MRS. B. P. BISHOP, DECEASED, v. KALA (K.) AND MAKAONI (W.) |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
To sustain title by prescription, the defendant's possession must be adverse, hostile, exclusive and notorious.
The facts of the case showing that the possession of defendants was not exclusive nor adverse to the plaintiffs but as their servants, the verdict was set aside as being clearly and decidedly contrary to the evidence.
P Neumann and J. L. Kaulukou, for plaintiffs.
C Creighton and S. K. Kane, for defendants.
OPINION
ON EXCEPTIONS.
In this case the Trustees of Mrs. Bishop's estate seek to recover of defendants the possession of a parcel of land, 242-1000 of an acre in extent, situate in Kakaako, Honolulu, near the Immigration Depot. It was proved as claimed in the declaration, and is not denied by defendants, that this lot of land is a part of the land of Kaakaukukui, granted to Victoria Kamamalu by Royal Patent number 4483. It was also proved, and it is not disputed by defendants, that the paper title to the land sued for is in the plaintiffs by descent from Victoria Kamamalu, to her father, M. Kekuanaoa, thence to his children, Kamehameha V. and Ruth Keelikolani, and by the death of Kamehameha V. it all passed to Ruth Keelikolani and from her by descent and devise to Mrs. B. P. Bishop whose trustees under her will the plaintiffs are.
The plaintiffs' evidence tended to show that one Keau, whose son and widow the defendants are respectively, occupied the land in question as tenant of the plaintiffs and their predecessors, his business being a fisherman and the lot being used as a place for the storing of canoes and nets.
The defense was title by prescription, and the defendants offered evidence tending to show that Keau took possession of this lot as an invader and continued to live upon it as his own for a period of over thirty years.
The verdict of a mixed jury was in favor of the defendants.
The plaintiffs excepted to the verdict as being contrary to the law and the weight of evidence, and moved for a new trial, which was refused pro forma by the presiding Justice (Bickerton), to which refusal the case comes by exceptions to the Full Court.
The rule of law as laid down in Howland vs. Jacobs, 2 Hawn. 155, is that " a new trial will not be granted on the ground that the verdict is against the weight of evidence, unless it clearly appears that the verdict is so manifestly against evidence as to lead to the conviction that either a mistake has been committed or that injustice has been done on the part of the jury."
In Forbes vs. Gibson, 3 Hawn. 260, the Court held " that a verdict will not be set aside unless clearly, palpably, decidedly and strongly against the evidence."
In Wight vs. Jones, 3 Hawn. 755, a new trial was refused because the verdict was not " manifestly the result of bias or misunderstanding of the evidence."
The converse of these propositions is that if it appears clearly to the Court that the verdict is so manifestly against evidence as to induce the conviction that a mistake has been made or that injustice has been done; or when it appears that the verdict is clearly; palpably, decidedly and strongly against the evidence, or is manifestly the result of bias or of misunderstanding on the part of the jury, the verdict will be set aside.
In the case before us we are of opinion that the verdict is of this nature and ought to be set aside and a new...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Territory Hawai`i v. Chong
...applying the rule consistently with a long line of its prior adjudications. ( James Howland v. Samuel Jacobs, 2 Haw. 155, 157; Bishop v. Kala, 7 Haw. 590, 591; Hayselden v. Wahineaea, 9 Haw. 51, 56; Dowsett v. Maukeala, 9 Haw. 233; Kapuakela v. Iaea, 10 Haw. 99, 100; Smith v. Hamakua Mill C......
-
Territory of Hawaii v. Chong
...applying the rule consistently with a long line of its prior adjudications. (James Howland v. Samuel Jacobs, 2 Haw. 155, 157; Bishop v. Kala, 7 Haw. 590, 591; Hayselden v. Wahineaea, 9 Haw. 56; Dowsett v. Maukeala, 9 Haw. 233; Kapuakela v. Iaea, 10 Haw. 99, 100; Smith v. Hamakua Mill Co., 1......
-
E. F. Bishop v. Kalua
...v. James Robinson, 2 Haw. 436; Kahoomana v. Minister of Interior, 3 Haw. 635, 640; Thurston vs. Bishop, 7 Haw. 421, 431; Bishop vs. Kala, 7 Haw. 590; Dowsett v. Maukeala, 10 Haw. 166; Principles of the Land Commission. 10. Act of December 10, 1845 (L. 1846, vol. 1, p. 107) (R. L. H. 1925, a......
-
Smith v. Hamakua Mill Co.
...to reverse decisions of the trial court and set aside verdicts when there has not been sufficient evidence to support them. See Bishop v. Kala 7 Haw. 590;Hayselden v. Wahineaea, 9 Haw. 51;Knudsen v. Palea, 10 Haw. 573. On the whole, I am inclined to think that this case is one of those in w......