Statistics: 38683 characters 6488 words
No. 8, Kamaha & Puhiula, claimants
[Margin note: presented for file 10 o'clock p.m. March 4]
Papers consisting of three documents in the Native language copied in the Native Register with a letter addressed to Reverend William Richards, page 4. N.R.
No. 8, Kamaha and Puhiula
To the Land Commissioners, [We t]he undersigned, the own children and heirs of our father, Puhiula, deceased.
We request that you reconsider the validity of our rights and you will understand that the person who is spoken of herein has no rights in our place.
The attached document explains that this is really our house lot, and contains statements by witnesses who said previously and will say in your presence, that no other person, no chief, no minister, nor any other official has had this place, except our own father, and that we, his children, inherited it, and no one else inherited it or was given it.
Also, on the document attached hereto is explained the reason for our petition and the explanation of the untruthfulness of the rights which this person has only assumed to have to our place, which was willed to us by the one who had the right to the kuleana.
In these two documents we publicly state the right, and the time when it was established, and how long it existed, and the combining, but the one whose rights are non-existent, with our kuleana rights, in order to get the kuleana for himself.
And we also tell you the name of the one about whom we are petitioning, he is Boaz Mahune, he is the one whom we speak of as encroaching on our rights, on part of the house lot which was willed to us in the last days of our seeing our father's face. He had a true right, which we inherited, because his right was established when the government established his right to his kuleana on this island.
This has continued because one side did not testify property about the matters attached hereto, and the testimony of the opposition was at fault. Because of our thought that they might get it, therefore we say that Paula Kanoa and Petero were those witnesses.
Here is something important which we wish to ask - choose an advocate so we can straighten out with him everything about the kuleana.
Because of the foregoing, we ask you to give us, and the one about whom we have petitioned, a trial, and establish the rights. However, there is only one thing you should consider, which is that we are the ones with the true right and should have the award.
KAMAHA, PUHIULA X, the heirs of Puhiula
Concerning the claim to the land
1. Our father established the land rights written below, during the time of King Kamehameha I when he was living on Oahu, after the battle of Nuuanu. At this time the King gave Wailupe to our father, and also at this time our father was living at this place which were are petitioning about since it is being taken by one who has no right to it.
2. At this time when the chiefs and the commoners are living in this city - at the time when there was no city, every one dwelt where he wished and from this occupation, it became fixed until this day.
3. Our father was the one who had the place where were are living now, and where B. Mahune is living, and the place where Sam Sing & Co. and the store of Grimes, just mauka, were his own.
4. The boundaries are known because Pehu is the one who knows, being the Luna who, with our father, fenced around this site, and there were also included some separate fences at this time spoken of above, and Pehu will verify his doing this.
5. The parcel from Sam Sing & Co.'s place to Grimes' place became part of our lot because a road which climbs just up from the entrance of the Fort, took part of our lot, therefore the government gave that place to repay for the part which became the road.
6. Pehu is the witness who knows these things and he is the one who knows this place was our father's and the Honorable M. Kekuanaoa, and B. Mahune, and a great many others, have no reason to deny it.
7. It was well understood that this place was truly our father's, for his very own, and no one could deny it.
The inheritance of the claim to the land.
At the time our father was preparing to go with (Boki? Poki?) ma, the lot was established from that corner to this corner, as it was formerly, and it was properly laid out, there was no other kuleana, nor a fence cutting mauka or makai, nor a fence in the middle, not at all, but is was only one house lot, being the place where we were living.
At that time, our father bequeathed to us, and at this time our mother also was living. Thus he decreed: "You two children are living here, and you are my heirs, and this lot is for you two and the land is for you two."
Because of this bequest, therefore we had possession of the land and the house lot; our father did not say that he had given some to Mahune, nor did he say he had given to anyone else, nor were the boundaries of our place pointed out, but it was stated that the house lot was for us.
The Correct Explanation.
On the first side of this paper, the claim to the land was established for the house lot, and the inheritance of our right and the explanation, and we here tell everything so the truth will be known and we should care for him and not harm him, and if he did wrong to us the keikis, then we should end /his tenure./ But we had affection for him, and /now/ we hear that he has petitioned independently to you, saying that he had a right in the house lot, and /if/ his parcel is independent, he is independent because of whom? I tell you that Keolewa has a right to the house as in the bequest of Kamakahelei, to live under us. We have not denied him, but his petition is to acquire a parcel, as in his getting a surveyor and surveying to separate his parcel, to be situated here, with his thought of absolutely denying that we are the ones with the true right. Therefore we think to tell you the truth, because there are many witnesses to our occupation of this place. Kindly consider this explanation and the verification, and if there are any questions that remain to be asked, please ask them.
Farewell to you, the Commissioners
People who heard the bequest: Kuanu, Liliu, Kane, Kahoohuli
Witnesses: Kaeo, Kakela, Kawahua, Kekuinau, Kekoko, Lanai, Kinu
Native Testimony page 326 [?]
Claim No. 8, Kamaha & Puhiula, April 8 
Kekuanaoa, sworn, deposed that he was called as a witness by both parties as the amount of his testimony will relate to his own transactions as Governor & to those of Kinau.
In 1822 when I came to the Island, Puhiula was in possession of the whole of that yard as mentioned by the claimant. It was separated by a path from the land occupied by Kinopu. When witness arrived here some of his relations went on the same yard to live, but the terms of the agreement he did not understand, and subsequently Mahune went in, in the same way. Witness says, that is all I know definitely and as far as I can see, it was Puhiula's yard.
Witness deposed, that according to ancient usage the Premier could take away land and give it to another. In illustration the place where the Seamans' chapel stands belonged to me; [?] another; and Kinau took it to give it to another, though she asked me & I gave my consent. Witness added that he could not have refused. Witness is of opinion that the premises have been permanently transferred to Mahune. They were transferred by word of mouth by Kinau in my presence. Witness refers to that which is permanently occupied by Mahune & round which his fence runs.
According to ancient usage the state of affairs is this. These claimants were above Mahune, and he occupied it under them, that was the former aspect of it. But the effect of Kinau's decision was to deprive them of any further rights in it.
Mahune was at that time living on the land as a tenant of the claimants. It was agreeable to ancient usage for the chiefs to take possession of land, either with or without the approbation of the tenant and confer it upon whom they pleased.
Witness says the he should be able to point out the boundaries of the land which Kinau declared to belong to Mahune. He is not able to point out the entire land claimed by the claimants. The entire land was surrounded by a fence in 1822. He thinks the fence ran to about the middle of the road called Fort Street.
Deposition in writing in the same claim by Stephen Reynolds.
I arrived at the island, port of Honolulu between the 5th and 10th of May 1823. Came on shore to live between the 15th and 20th of June. I have resided in the village since, without having been absent more than [tear in paper] days at any one time. The times to Maui, and once to [tear in paper] on this island. There were very few enclosures by mud walls at that time. They were just beginning to be built; some house had small stick stuck in the ground for fence around the houses, some had a fence of larger sticks around their house lots; but a far greater proportion were without any fence at that time. There were no regular streets then, nothing but pathways.
When I came ashore, there were six or eight grass houses more of less, surrounded by stick fence, enclosing a large piece of ground where Puila lived. On the front or fort side without the fence, there was a piece of ground unoc ....
[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
[Start of Bottom Preview (1/3 of document)]
.... estion: Have you seen the property on which Kamaka ma (plural) are living?
Kihoe: Yes, I have seen (it).
Question: Do you know how long that (two) have lived on that property?
Kihoe: I do not know about their residence there before the time we came from Hawaii to Oahu. From that time to this, I know that they live there.
Question: How long have you lived here?
Kihoe: It has been long, perhaps from the year 1835 to this day.
Question: Did you hear about Kinau granting land to Mahune?
Kihoe: I did not hear (that); however, I heard Kinau refuse to grant to Mahune.
Question: Who filed suit at the time Kinau said this?
Kihoe: Kamaka and Puhiula.
Question: What did Kinau say to their suit?
Kihoe: Kinau said that the property was for them. Sometime later Mahune came to complain that Kamaka was driving him away from his (Mahune) property.
Kinau told Mahune that he did not own Kauwahi.
Question: What did Mahune say?
Kihoe: He said Kauwahi belongs to him, and Kinau denied this.
Question: Kinau denied again but Mahune continued to live on that property (eh)?
Kihoe: Yes, perhaps. That is the end of what I had heard.
The president of the commissioner gave Mahune the privilege to ask questions:
Mahune: Did they (these two) bring suit to Kinau only?
Kilioe: Yes, they came at noon when we were dining and complained about the grant of Kauwahi to Mahune.
They also said that the property belonged to them and that it was from their father.
Kinau said, "What am I going to do about this, I cannot give (you)?
Mahune: What was your occupation at that time?
Mahune: Was I there when they brought suit?
Kilioe: No, you were not here when they brought suit to Kinau, you came later. I saw you on the day of the hearing.
Mahune: Were you one of them at the hearing?
Kilioe: Yes, but I did not hear Kinau grant Mahune a certain section of Kamaka (ma s) property.
Mahune: Did Kamaka ma file complaint one day and had a hearing on another day?
Mahune: Where did they hold court at Halekauwila here or at the fort?
Kilioe: At the fort.
Kaohe was sworn and questioned by the officers who quiet titles:
Question: Do you know about the property that Mahune is living on?
Question: How long?
Kaohe: I don t quite know the length of time, but it was before Poki came back.
Question: Do you know the reason it was granted to Mahune?
Question: Did you see their court hearing before Kinau?
Kaohe: No, I did not know of the beginning of their activities because I was iuka (upland) at the mud house and here is the place they had carried on their work. I was summoned by Kinau to come here. When I came, they (these two) alone were having a hearing and talking with Kinau. I did not see Mahune.
Question: What statement(s) did you hear?
Kaohe: The denial by Kinau.
Question: How did Kinau deny?
Kaohe: She denied that Mahune had any property there.
Question: What is the reason for the denial by Kinau?
Kaohe: It was the suit that was filed by them and because she hurriedly asked me to go and get food, I had to go out and that was all that I had heard.
Question: Did you hear from some other source later?
Kaohe: These people had all gone home when I heard Kinau say, "It is the property of my guardians."
Question: What was Mahune's work at that time?
Kaohe: A recorder.
Question: Is it all that you have heard?
The proceedings were postponed to the 7th day of May, which is Thursday when work will be resumed. P. Kanoa will testify for B. Mahune.
No. 8, Claim of B. Mahune (there is no claim in Mahune's name), Office of the Board of Commissioners Who Quiet Land Titles Kauwila House, May 7 1846, See K. Kamaka and Puhiula
Paulo Kanoa, sworn and questioned by land officers:
Question: Did you see the property Mahune lived on at that time?
P. Kanoa: Yes, I have seen it. Afterwards, at the time of the war on Kauai, he went there (Mahune's property) where they were starting to teach writing and there it was the place we lived.
Question: When was Mahune living there?
P. Kanoa: I don t know.
Question: Was Mahune living there at the time Liholiho went to Tahiti? /sic/.
Question: What is Kauluhaimalama's interest there?
P. Kanoa: I don t know.
Question: Did you know that property was for Puhiula?
P. Kanoa: I did not know that property was for Puhiula nor for anyone else.
Question: Did you see the unusual happening in the town?
P. Kanoa: Yes.
Question: When was this?
P. Kanoa: That was the time Kinau went to the continuous prayer meetings.
Question: Do you know what was done about that property before and afterwards?
P. Kanoa: Yes, at the time of Kinau, I was summoned to testify to Kaahumanu's I statement when she objected to Mahune's dealings as claimed by Nua. Kinau asked me to relate everything Kaahumanu had done. I related that Mahune made his lot so large by extending it to the road just outside of Nua's property. Mahune refused, and Nua refused, finally Nua complained to Kaahumanu. As a result of this quarrel, I was sent by Kaahumanu to settle this problem between Nua and Mahune and was assured that whatever I thought was right would be sanctioned by Kaahumanu. I investigated and I knew with surety that Nua was right and Mahune was wrong.
Question: When Kinau heard these words, what did she say?
P. Kanoa: Kinau said, "That's fine, we know there is nothing more to do."
That was the end of my report.
Question: Did you hear about the suit filed to Kinau by Kamaka and Puhiula?
P. Kanoa: Yes I have heard but I don't know (about it).
The President of the Commissioners gave permission to Puhiula and Kamaka to ask P. Kanoa questions:
Kamaka: Kanoa, what claim are we asking of Kinau?
P. Kanoa: You are thinking of taking Mahune's property.
No. 8, Kamaka and Puhiula, Boaza Mahune, See volume I, April 20, 1849
P. Kanoa, sworn, I had seen this place at the time it was intact before the streets were being built and Mahune was living there. No other person, only B. Mahune's people were living there and there were houses standing there. The government had built the streets at the time of Kinau and Boaz Mahune had refused this but Kekuanaoa had ordered the houses be removed to the Waikiki direction after which B. Mahune agreed. The road was built in 1837 when was living with Kinau as secretary. I have not seen nor heard how Mahune had acquired his place but there was a house, Kauluhaimalama where we lived. Mahune had lived there in 1823. Puhiula and Malaea had objected to him and a court hearing before Kinau was held where the decision made was in favor of Mahune. It was in the year 1826 that we had built a wooden enclosure and I had lived under Mahune then.
I have seen the document of lease for Mahune and Alex Smith for the Waikiki side of Fort street, but I did not see Kekupuohi's name in that document. The signatures of the chief and premier appear below certifying that lease. I have not heard the chief had refused Mahune this contract because he did understand the interest was from Mahune.
It was Mahune who had built the house at the mauka corner of the Ewa section and in the year 1843, a Chinese had filed a complaint for the house in which John was living there. The decision was reached in Mahune's favor.
Then Liholiho went to Briton and Kekupuohi went to live with Hoapili on Maui and I had not heard nor seen Kekupuohi file an objection for her claim.
The payment for the lease of the Waikiki side was made by the government to Mahune. Kekupuohi did not get any money and if Kekupuohi did come here, she did not stay at any of these places. Mahune has younger brothers, Paoha-lahua and Malaopu and one parent, no sisters or parents; they have all died.
I know Kekupuohi, she is the wife of Kauluhaimalama, but I have never known his bequest of that land to someone else.
A. Paki, sworn, I had seen this land for the first time in 1826 when we had come from Hawaii with Liholiho and Kauluhaimalama lived there, but I have not known about the bequest of that place to Mahune; however, I have seen him living there with the person who had raised Konia. I did not see Kekupuohi there, she was on Maui. In the year 1837, our house was broken to make way on the street and I was a subject of Kapolohau at the time. Mahune asked for sixty dollars for the house but he did not get this money. He has the priority for this land; no one has objected.
I have never heard Kauluhaimalama's bequest to Kekupuohi but I have thought only that he probably have or have not, perhaps.
Kekuapanio, sworn, I had lived with Mahune in the same house from the time the battle of Kauai had ended to the time Paki and Konia had married in 1826 and I did not see Kekupuohi there, but Mahune had charge of that place after the streets were built. Also, I had not heard Kekupuohi had objected to Mahune. The lease was between Mahune and Alex Smith and I have not heard Kekupuohi had signed that document, perhaps Kanoa has known. I have not known Kekupuohi has been given some of that money.
[Award 8; R.P. 29 & 35; Merchant St. Honolulu Kona; 1 ap.; .27 Ac.; tmk 1-2-1-01, 02; No. 29 refers to LCA 8, but 35 does not and gives the land over to Henry Dimond]