Statistics: 13810 characters 2374 words
No. 2, Robert Kilday, claimant
F.R. 7-8v1
[margin note: Presented for filepast 2 o'clock p.m. 17 February. .W.L.]
The land called Poaloalolilo was granted me by his present Majesty in 1821 in consideration of my services. Two chiefs, Kikihua and Haalilio attempted to deprive me of the possession, but his Majesty would not permit them, and was graciously pleased to confirm my right thereto. The last chief so attempting was Haalilo in 1832, since which period I have enjoyed unmolested possession. I have no written conveyance.
Robert Kilday, X, his mark
Honolulu, 17th February 1846
To the Commissioners for quieting Land Titles, &c, &c, &c.
Epitome of the above: A letter addressed to the Honorable Commissioners, purporting to be signed by Robert Kilday, claimant, of certain land called Poaloalolilo - affirmed to have been granted him by his present Majesty in 1821 in consideration of his services. He alledges [sic] that his majesty opposed the attempts of two chiefs, Kikihua and Haalilio to dispossess him of said land, and confirmed his right, and that he has held unmolested possession since 1832, the time when the last chief Haalilio attempted to disturb him. He further alledges that he has no written conveyance.
Supplementary. Letter to the above, dated 18th February 1846, Honolulu.
No. 2. Addressed to the Board of Commissioners:
The land in Nuuanu Valley called Pualoali and two fish ponds thereto attached (in Kukuluaio) has been in my possession and granted me, by his present Majesty, Kamehameha III, since 1821. In 1824 a chief named Keikiohewa attempted to deprive me of possession, but the King opposed him. In 1832-3 Haalilio did the same. His Majesty again opposed him. Ever since I have had unmolested possession. On these grounds rest my title. Written conveyances seldom given in those days.
For Robert Kilday, R. Boyd.
Epitome of the above: Letter, supplementary dated 18th February 1846 and signed R. Boyd for Robert Kilday, further states his claim to the land in Nuuanu Valley called Pualoali and two fish ponds attached (in Kukuluaio) which he affirms to have been in his possession, and granted by his present Majesty since 1821; who opposed the chief Keikiohewa in 1824 and Haalilio in 1832 and 1833 in their attempts to dispossess him of said property, since which time he has held it unmolested. He states his title to rest on these grounds; and that written conveyances were seldom given in those days.
[margin note: Letter No. 2 received after registering the first statement]
F.T. 1-7v1
Claim No. 2, Robert Kilday, 1846
March 11th. Robert Boyd deposed that the land in question was understood by him from nati ....
[End of Top Preview]
This document has been trimmed for your preview.
To view and download this record, add to your document tray by clicking on the button.
Add to Document Tray
[End of Preview]
.... d of that age, and that Kalaimoku & Kahaumanu should cooperate with the King at that age as his guardians. Witness, in stating that Kahumanu would resort to Kalaimoku for two persons, one as guardian of the infant King, and one as Governor. He does not mean to say that the Governor, as such would have anything to do with it. Witness, deposed that Kilday has occupied the land from 1825 - he has not lived upon it all the time.
No land ever becomes the property of a person from mere occupancy - for sake of propriety, the Landlord would not turn him off without a fault, the Landlord would himself be the judge whether a fault had been committed or not.
Witness stated, if a man committed a fault he [Landlord] would immediately dispossess him with informing him.
Witness has heard that Kilday did not work for the King without payment after he had possession of the land.
Witness does not know that the King gave him anything.
Witness says that the reason Haalilio wished to dispossess Kilday of the land was because he refused to do work for the King without payment.
Witness says it was not customary ever for the child to dispose of his land without the father's consent, during the father's lifetime.
It is not strictly in accordance with their custom for the child to dispose of his land without the consent of the parents, or if no parents, the consent of near relation or guardians.
Witness said that it was not customary or consistent with them when the Landlords changed to dispossessed tenants.
If there was an agreement between the old Landlord & the new they sometimes dispossessed the tenant, but not without a fault.
Witness stated that the King would be injured by the Title of this land being given to Kilday, but no other person.
According to the understanding of witness, the real right belonging to Kilday in this land are small, compared with those of the tenants.
Kilday had two taro patches, but the tenants owned the greater part. It was their duty to keep them in order.
Witness deposed that sometimes when the tenants have brought in the produce of their land, the whole has gone to the King, but he considers Paki's statement to be correct.
Witness thinks that the rights of tenants being deducted [text missing?] Half of the residence should belong to the King. If they were going to give Kilday what really belongs to him, he, witness, thinks that all that belongs to him are the two taro patches. The uncultivated lands belong to the government, the principal part should belong to the King.
[Award 2; R.P 1; Koula Honolulu Kona; 1 ap.; 1.96 Acs; Pualoalo Honolulu Kona; 1 ap.; 7.46 Acs; 1-1-7-12]