Dowsett Case Analysis
Dowsett Paper to Prof Zhou May 2013.docx E
Steve Laudig
Koe na Kuleana o Kanaka- Subject Always to the Rights of Tenants: James I. Dowsett v. Maukeala (K), Naea (K), Kaumaea (K), Hina (W), Elikai (K), And Kaluahilo (K)- An “Occupational” Error Ejecting Hawaiians from the Resources of their Land and Seas.
The transfer of territory from one national community to another gives rise to legal problems of a difficult and complex character.”
The King 's title to the Iliainas, …, was perfect. So were also the titles of those chiefs, who had Iliainas in the same Ahupuaas "maheled" to them, perfect so far as the King was concerned. They had, of course, to follow the mahele up with an award, and were entitled to Royal Patents on …show more content…
It begins with a rather snide aside, stating the “sole ground for the ruling of the trial court in setting aside the verdict (as I understand it)…” Its tone borders on impertinence or resignation. As if the Defendant’s lawyer knows he will lose and can only take pleasure in being mildly insulting.
The Defendants then, dangerously it seems to me, agrees that the “sole defence” (sic) was “adverse possession.” It is unsound strategy in legal argument to accept one’s opponent’s frame of the issue.
If you accept the frame you have probably lost. On appeal, if defending a verdict, counsel should strive to find any legal basis in the record as there is generally, in non-revolutionary times anyway, a respect for juries as the finders of fact. Ashford did not do this. In an ill-structured rant, for lack of a better term, he shotguns for the entire six pages of written argument, when the essential argument is that the jury is to be left to decide the facts when witnesses give evidence that is open to two interpretations which is the province of the jury. With one example being that the “giving of fish” that was that they may attornments and could simply have been hookupus or gifts. That was for the jury to decide. Defendants denied all allegations and were specific in their …show more content…
It is clear the court had access to a transcript of the trial as it quotes witnesses. I have been unable to locate this record as yet.
In upholding the trial court’s decision the Court refers to a case that it believes is directly on point, Bishop, et al. v. Kala and Makaoni, 7 Hawai 'i 590. It bears discussing this case.
The Bishop Estate Trustees consisting of Charles R. Bishop, Saml. M. Damon, Charles M. Hyde, Charles M. Cooke and Joseph O. Carter, brought an action against Kala (K.) and Makaoni (W.). Paul Neumann and J.L. Kaulukou represented the Bishop Estate while C. Creighton and S. K. Kane represented Kala and Makaoni. The property being disputed was 242/1000s of an acre in Kakaako “near the Immigration Depot.” In other words a quarter of an acre.
As the Court noted 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
Steve Laudig
Koe na Kuleana o Kanaka- Subject Always to the Rights of Tenants: James I. Dowsett v. Maukeala (K), Naea (K), Kaumaea (K), Hina (W), Elikai (K), And Kaluahilo (K)- An “Occupational” Error Ejecting Hawaiians from the Resources of their Land and Seas.
The transfer of territory from one national community to another gives rise to legal problems of a difficult and complex character.”
The King 's title to the Iliainas, …, was perfect. So were also the titles of those chiefs, who had Iliainas in the same Ahupuaas "maheled" to them, perfect so far as the King was concerned. They had, of course, to follow the mahele up with an award, and were entitled to Royal Patents on …show more content…
It begins with a rather snide aside, stating the “sole ground for the ruling of the trial court in setting aside the verdict (as I understand it)…” Its tone borders on impertinence or resignation. As if the Defendant’s lawyer knows he will lose and can only take pleasure in being mildly insulting.
The Defendants then, dangerously it seems to me, agrees that the “sole defence” (sic) was “adverse possession.” It is unsound strategy in legal argument to accept one’s opponent’s frame of the issue.
If you accept the frame you have probably lost. On appeal, if defending a verdict, counsel should strive to find any legal basis in the record as there is generally, in non-revolutionary times anyway, a respect for juries as the finders of fact. Ashford did not do this. In an ill-structured rant, for lack of a better term, he shotguns for the entire six pages of written argument, when the essential argument is that the jury is to be left to decide the facts when witnesses give evidence that is open to two interpretations which is the province of the jury. With one example being that the “giving of fish” that was that they may attornments and could simply have been hookupus or gifts. That was for the jury to decide. Defendants denied all allegations and were specific in their …show more content…
It is clear the court had access to a transcript of the trial as it quotes witnesses. I have been unable to locate this record as yet.
In upholding the trial court’s decision the Court refers to a case that it believes is directly on point, Bishop, et al. v. Kala and Makaoni, 7 Hawai 'i 590. It bears discussing this case.
The Bishop Estate Trustees consisting of Charles R. Bishop, Saml. M. Damon, Charles M. Hyde, Charles M. Cooke and Joseph O. Carter, brought an action against Kala (K.) and Makaoni (W.). Paul Neumann and J.L. Kaulukou represented the Bishop Estate while C. Creighton and S. K. Kane represented Kala and Makaoni. The property being disputed was 242/1000s of an acre in Kakaako “near the Immigration Depot.” In other words a quarter of an acre.
As the Court noted 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