62 Haw. 358, 359-360, 614 P.2d 943 (1980)...... 19 Paxton v. State, 2 Haw. App. 46, 48, 625 19 Beamer v. Nishiki, 66 Haw. 572, 578; P.2d. (1983). Aku v. Lewis, 52 Haw. 366, 370-371; 477 P.2d 162, 165 (1970).... State v. Zimring, 52 Haw. 472, 475; 479 Poafpybitty v. Skelly Oil Company, 390 U.S. 365, 88 S.Ct. 982 (1968) Jacobson v. Yoon, 41 Haw. 181... State of Washington v. Charles Ellis and John Ward, 22 W 129. Revised Laws of Hawaii 1925, General Laws, & 15 1 23 ACTS: Admission Act of 1959, Sections 4 & 5(f).... Hawaiian Organic Act, Section 73..... 61st Congress, Session III, Chapter 231(1911) Section 235... 3 & 13 28 ORDINANCES Kauai, Hawaii, Revised Ordinances Kauai, Hawaii, Revised Ordinances 7 & 12 11 This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes ("H.R.S.") Sections 602-5, 602-11 and 641-1, and Rule 3 and 4(a)(4) of the Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure, and Article I, Section XIII of the State of Hawaii Constitution, and the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution, Article I through X, and the Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution and all of the substantial elements of trial by jury as they existed at common law, and the Revised Laws of the Territory of Hawaii in 1925, General Laws, Title I, Chapter I: The common law of England, as ascertained by English and American decisions, is declared to be the common law of the Territory of Hawaii in all cases, except as otherwise expressly provided by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or by the laws of the Territory, or fixed by Hawaiian judicial precedent, or established by Hawaiian usage, provided however, that no person shall be subject to criminal proceedings except as provided by the written laws of the United States or of the Territory. Prior to this statute, the courts were authorized to decide according to reason and equity and to adopt the principles of the common law or the civil law when founded in justice and not contrary to Hawaiian law or usage (L. 1847, p. 5; C. C. 1859, ss. 14, 823), Notley v. Brown, 17 H. 393, 410. The Judgment on Appeal, denying Plaintiffs-Appellants Motion for Reconsideration and to Alter or Amend Judgment was entered by the State of Hawaii Circuit Court of the Fifth Circuit on February 9, 1988 (Record on Appeal ("R") at 526-527). Appellates filed their Notice of Appeal Writ of Error on Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration and to Alter or Amend Judgment on March 7, 1988 (R. at 531-534). The Record on Appeal was filed with this Court on April 11, 1988, and Notice and Caveat mailed April 18, 1988 to all parties. Appellants Opening Brief is due on or before May 28, Plaintiffs-Appellants, HAROLD U. JIM, HARRY U. JIM and CYNTHIA M. KAIMINAAUAO and Plaintiff HERBERT H. KAUAHI, in pro per-sui juris, natural born citizens of native Hawaiian and Hawaiian ancestry, beneficiaries and recipients of the Ceded Land Trusts and funds created by Sections 4 and 5(f) of the Admission Act, pursuant to Article XII, Section 4 of the State of Hawaii Constitution, and having exhausted the necessary procedures (R. at 278-288), and being persons affected by Defendant-Appellee, THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN HAWAII'S ("CHURCH") wrongfully actions, have on their Own behalf and having knowledge of the allege violations, were compelled to commence this civil action with a complaint action at law trial by jury, filed in the Circuit Court of the Fifth Circuit, State of Hawaii, on October 9, 1986 (R. at 1-57). The complaint alleged a claim or cause of action of a Breach of Covenant against Appellee CHURCH for violating a sealed covenant under Land Patent No. 8661 of a deed restriction use, issued in accordance with the provisions of Section 73 of the Hawaiian Organic Act and the Revised Laws of Hawaii 1925 (R. at 2 & 101-105) that reads: "The land covered by this Grant is sold and may be used for Church purposes only. In the event of its being used for other than church purposes, this patent shall be void and the land herein granted shall immediately revert to and revest in the Territory of Hawaii". Upon the effective date of Defendants acquiring Land Patent No. 8661 from the Territory of Hawaii on April 6, 1925, there was no provision or condition of any type of a waiver |