Statistics: 4697 characters 795 words
No. 1639, Lehuanui
N.R. 192v3
`Ili of Kanewai, Ahupua`a of Waikiki, Island of Oahu. I have two small lo`i, one on the south and one on the north. My lo`i on the north is bounded on the north by the lo`i of Umu, on the east by the lo`i of Kauo, on the south by the irrigation ditch of Waahila, on the west by the lo`i of Kawelo. My lo`i on the south is bounded on the north by the lo`i of Umu, on the east by the lo`i of Nahinai, on the south by the lo`i of Umu, on the west by the lo`i of Niau. There is one kula and one house.
LEHUANUI
F.T. 149-150v3
No. 1639, Lehuanui, 9 October [1849]
Uma [Umu?], sworn, This land is in Kanewai, Waititi, in 3 lots.
1 house lot. Claimant has 2 houses on this & a partial fence.
Mauka is Kupaki's
Waialae, Ono's
Makai, Kalama
Honolulu, Ohia's.
3. One kalo patch:
Mauka is N ....
[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]
.... sworn, the two patches were given to be cultivated - the food on it was for him, the ground below was for the chief. Lehuanui lived there until he filed a claim. When Bishop surveyed (the land), the konohiki opposed and argued that he (Lehuanui) should not have this claim there.
Lehuanui - Here is the truth - the document by the tax assessor, Nehemia Hooliliamanu. You must see this document.September 12, 1851, By Nehemia Hooliliamanu.
J. Ii - This document - its verification is not accurate. These poalima patches should not have been given to Lehuanui, they are for the konohiki. He did not give the correct information to Hooliliamanu. He had informed the tax assessor the patches were for the tenants. Many witnesses do known the poalima status of Lehuanui's patches of which he is demanding. This is a clarification of the reason Lehuanui cannot claim these patches.
[No. 1639 not awarded]