The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1879-12-27

they describe the boundary throughout with great
local knowledge of particulars, giving names Of
points and places and the nature of the ground
which determines the line, as along a ridge, the
edge of d pail, or q gully or water course and
in no part OF the line do they testify on surer
ground of knowledge than that which is here in
question. On the north side, far above the point of
variation, they fix the line between this land and
Omaopio as being along O kahawai. or ravine.
Every witness who speaks of this part, except
perhaps Opuuui, carries tho line along this kaha-
wal to Pohakiikii, this rock which was a resting
place., and all of petitioners witnesses very
strongly state that the line of Pulehunui continued
to follow the same natural boundary. They
bring it to another locality which has a natural
characteristic Kaopala, where the water ceases
to have a current, having reached the bottom of
the East Maui slope and meeting the slope from
West Maui. Here there Is a reason tor the
boundary turning from its westerly course, and 1t
turns at Kaopaia and goes to the healia pond,
along the depression or kahawai formed by these
slopes. We are impressed that this line Is a nat
ural and probable one, and that 1t Is such adds
weight to the testimony given Tor 1t. Our pre-
liminary observation respecting the tendency to
observe natural lines applies here. On the other
hand, what is the testimony to support the claim
that the boundary leaves the kahawai down which
1t had run at Pohakiikii and turns to the south.
kaupaa, a witness who claims to know as a
kamaalna, says that from POhakilkii 1t runs to
Keahuakapiele, mauka of these, where is q hole
dug for water from there to Kalaniwai from
there to the river (Kamuliwai). This statement
is a bald one. The next witness, Keliikoa, simply
says the boundary runs from Kihei 20 Pohaklki,
and he only knows it because he once saw some
surveyors set their flags and make this the line.
The third witness, Opunui-, speaks more like a
kamaaina. He says the boundary was not at
Pohakiikii, but at a place farther mauka (east),
in this respect differing from contestants other
witnesses. He is not acquainted with the bound
airy throughout Pulehunui, and he and others
with him give Pulehunui a coast line which We
understand to be Incompatible with contestants
claim.
B Without further detail from the testimony of
the remaining witnesses we may say that. taking
things together, their means of knowledge,
their consistency with each other, and the intrin-
sic character of their statements, we are compelled
to adopt the line made by the petitioners wit
nesses. We should disregard the most convincing
testimony to take the other view. The great
weight of testimony is on the side OF the petit
toner. Evea the appellants witnesses are more
with that boundary than with the cut
line.
1t ia evident to us that for some time past 1t
has been claimed that Waikapu extended to Po-
by the present holders but no question
Of adverse possession enters this case. On the
of what was the true and ancient boundary
Of the land, we agree with the finding of the
Commissioner of Boundaries, and hereby confirm
judgment.