The Hawaiian gazette., 1882-09-13
Supreme Court Of the Hawaiian I.lAnds
In Vacation RS Of July Term. IsS2.
Il B.ug-Jsd1, CT, Mc-gl Il Aasts, H.


0pu,iJl cfHs t9-r, On J.db c. J.
The plaintiffs coi1plaiuCi before the Com
uissioutrs Of Water Rights. that The defend
luts had by the erection 81 stone dam
across natural stream at Kauoiliili, Honolulu,
Oahu, deprived thsm (the p,aiuuls) Of tLJ
proper flow Of water 10 which they had
right by prescription aud prayed that defend
ants be ordered 10 remove the obstruction 4
majority Of tho Commissioners found in favor
IT the defendants ard tic case was appealed
90 This Court The testimony taken before
the Commissioners vas Tgll and a number ul
additional witnesses examined and two Of the
Justices Of this Court have examined the f'-iis
90 qs1.
Il appears l1l lie defendants have buil,
up with cement and stone dam across tho
Pal0lo Valley stream which at this point Is
called tho "Pahll stream " from is running
through tie land ef lllai name. This dam
took the place Of enc Of loose stones on the
Same spot which turned the water FROM the
stream into All artificial channel ur tErI'
leading to defendants land kaluaolohc This
land receives its only supply Of water from
this source and has enjoyed the SANG from
ancient times. But little water comes FROM
Palolo Valley proper durins the principal
part Of the year, but whsu heavy rains occur
freshCts swell the stream % a torrent which
however quickly subsidies. The steady sup
ply Of water ~ this stream COmCs frUm springs
in the land called kallpohikl, " bich cmpties
into this stream above aud somewhat to tho
north Of this dam.
The plaintiffs land las It's main supply u
water from the kansVai springs and whatever
remains Of the Nanos Valley stream. This
wafer cmpties into the Pahoa stream d few
feet below Tie dam, the subject Of this Gun
trJvcEsy.
From all Tie testimony We arr Of the opinion
that the plaintiffs arc not, Is claimed BY them,
entitled IS 4 right to 0nc-hah Of the water IN
the Pahoa stream which comes TO the dam
hut ouly 70 what water nay escape under or
through the dam, and this hears 4 very IN
considerable proposition to the water from the
kanCwai springs which IS their main de-
PeudaBce. Before the rebuilding complained
Of this must have becn a varying quantity For
the evidence Is that the dam had 10 b rebuilt
Of stone aud sods whenever washed away by
trCsECLs, aud these OccuTcd frequently Il lie
not u all likely that q rude structure Cf this
sind would Do rebuilt twice exactly alike.
Tie present dam does not turn all the water
into defendants ditch. It seems to Us that il
is established by the weight Of the testimony
shat about rs much water escapes now aad
runs 10 plaintiffs land, as vas won't teforc the
present dam vas built
The plaintiffs cauHo; complain that this dam
prevents the flow 10 them Of frrshet water, for
it Is clear that the dam is low enough 20 have
frgshe. water pass over II.
Il Is certainly Convenience 10 the parties
10 have q coneutcd dam. Il Is more durable
and less likely to be tampcred with
We set no reason Why it should be removed,
as its existence docs not impair OF interfere
with the rights which She plaintiffs have to
the surplus water.
The judgment Of tic Court is Tor the de-
fsudautE
z n Hatch for plaintiffs W. K. Castle
for Defendants.
Honolulu, Aug. 18th, lssz.