Reid v. Talalele

4 Am. Samoa 458
CourtHigh Court of American Samoa
DecidedFebruary 19, 1964
DocketNo. 93-1963
StatusPublished

This text of 4 Am. Samoa 458 (Reid v. Talalele) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering High Court of American Samoa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Reid v. Talalele, 4 Am. Samoa 458 (amsamoa 1964).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

ROEL, Associate Justice.

On July 5, 1968 Talalele Nuaea, hereinafter referred to as Talalele, filed his application with the Registrar of Titles to be registered as the-holder of the matai title Tali, attached to the Village of Pago Pago. Mabel C. Reid, hereinafter referred to as Mabel, filed her objection to the proposed registration on July 15,1963. Tu’uaimau Alapati, [460]*460hereinafter referred to as Tu’uaimau, filed his objection to the proposed registration on July 31, 1963. Both Mabel and Tu’uaimau claimed a better right to the title. This resulted in each of the objectors and the applicant becoming candidates for the title Tali, hence this litigation. See Sec. 6.0106, Code of American Samoa, 1961 Edition.

Sec. 6.0101 of the Code sets out the basic qualifications which a person must have to be eligible-to succeed to a matai title. It is clearly established from the evidence that each of the three candidates is eligible to be registered as the holder of a matai title.

Sec. 6.0107 of the Code sets out the considerations which shall guide the Court in determining which of the opposing candidates shall be registered as the holder of a matai title. It reads as follows:

“CONSIDERATION GIVEN BY COURT: In the trial of matai title cases, the High Court shall be guided by the following considerations, in the priority listed:
“First: The best hereditary right in which the male and female descendants shall be equal in families where this has been customary, otherwise the male descendant shall prevail over the female.
“Second: The wish of the majority or plurality of those clans of the family as customary in that family.
“Third: The forcefulness, character, personality, and knowledge of Samoan custom.
“Fourth: The value of the holder of the matai title to the family, the village, and the country.”

Each of the three candidates filed his pedigree with the Court and testified with respect to his descent from a former holder of the Tali title. It is undisputed that Applicant Talalele has 1k Tali blood and that Mabel has lhi Tali blood. Tu’uaimau’s pedigree as filed reflected that he had x/4 Tali blood. However, his pedigree was challenged by Mabel and later by Talalele. Mabel insisted that one Tali Pouono, who Tu’uaimau claimed as his grandfather, had never existed. Neither Mabel nor Talalele included Tali [461]*461Pouono in their pedigree. After questioning by the Court, Tu’uaimau could not logically explain the existence of Tali Pouono as his grandfather, who according to Tu’uaimau, would be 160 years old if now living. Tu’uaimau testified that his grandfather Pouono acquired the title Tali in 1829 at the age of about 25. We will not go into great detail since the record reflects all the testimony on this matter, but this Court is of the unanimous opinion, after considering .the witness’ demeanor and unsatisfactory answers and also considering the span of life of Samoans 150 years ago, that Tu’uaimau’s grandfather did not hold the title Tali Pouono and that said Tali Pouono should be disregarded in estimating the Tali heredity of Tu’uaimau. When asked by the Court whom he would claim descendance from if Tali Pouono were disregarded, Tu’uaimau answered he would claim as the descendant of Tali Vaivai, the same Tali from which Mabel claimed descendance. On argument, Lolo, counsel for Tu’uaimau, stated that if Tali Pouono were disregarded, Tu’uaimau would have Vs Tali blood. This Court is of the unanimous opinion that after disregarding Tali Pouono, as we now do, that leaves Tu’uaimau with %2 hereditary right to the Tali title. Both of the Samoan judges agreed with this.

It follows .therefore that Talalele with 1k Tali blood prevails on the issue of hereditary right over Mabel and Tu’uaimau. We hold that Mabel and Tu’uaimau are on an equal level on the issue of hereditary right, each having V32 Tali blood.

Concerning the matter of the clans, there was conflict not only on the number of clans favoring each individual candidate, but there was disagreement also as to the number of clans in the Tali Family.

The provision in the Code reads: “The wish of the majority or plurality of those clans of the family as customary in that family.” The Legislature of American [462]*462Samoa, either in its wisdom or as a result of an oversight, failed to define the word “clan.” There are different theories as to what a clan means. Some argue that the number of clans in the family is determined by the number of offspring of the original holder of the title, and that each of the children of the original holder who gets married and has children constitutes a clan, no matter how long the title has been in existence or how many different families there are. Another theory is that there are as many clans in the Family as there have been holders of the title, each title holder giving origin to another clan. Still another theory is that the number of clans depends on the number of families of the different title holders with the restriction that when two or more brothers or sisters hold the title consecutively, it should only count as one clan.

This Court does not propose — and it would not, even if it could — to advise the Legislature on the wording of this or any other statute, but we believe that until the term “clan” is defined or clarified, the question of interpretation will be up to the Court, and we will not hesitate to give it a definite interpretation when it shall become absolutely necessary, unless the Legislature makes its own clarification.

Two of the three candidates presented pedigrees and testified and argued that there was only one (1) clan in the Tali Family because Lolopo, whom all three candidates agree was the original holder of the title, had only had one child who was later to become Tali Aetonu. The other candidate, Mabel, insisted in her pedigree, testimony and arguments that there were six (6) clans in the Tali Family and that five (5) of these clans favored her, even though her testimony indicated there had been nine (9) holders of the Tali title. Each of the two candidates claiming only one clan in the Tali Family agreed that the present members of that same one clan were divided as to whom they favored to hold [463]*463the title and that different members of this one clan favored each of the three candidates for the title. We should point out here that Mabel pointed out from the members of the audience purported representatives of the different families or “clans” in the Tali Family favoring her candidacy.

If we go along with the proposition of the majority of the candidates that there is only one clan in the Tali Family and that each of the three candidates is favored by different members of this one clan, then this Court is faced with the necessity of disregarding the consideration concerning clans, since one clan cannot be dissected or divided amongst the three candidates. As a matter of fact, Lolo, counsel for one of the candidates, specifically asked the Court to disregard the clan consideration.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
4 Am. Samoa 458, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reid-v-talalele-amsamoa-1964.