The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1884-10-08
SEprezs Court CT the Hawaiian Islands
In BIzco- July Tern 1854

Loo CE- Sl-L 1T Al. ~. W0yG kri-
l-- J IL O. J. K-Cfy md Iutia. J. T..
y-sl o. ILsC vi
LL- l. an appeal from the Board Of
y a-=E Lgl-u-ss5gZzrs 1t H11gluLu- re-
-EecuEE some contested water rights IN
Pablo Valley. The decision q the con-
l-zs-1-=rs settles eight points ii dispute
between lLz parties. most Of which the
contestants Elw aeCspt- This appeal We
--.L=rsll-l % call II question only wEeth
81 d-= defendant has not IL the land called
kal-vsz--a enlarged the territory which
vas from z-EleEt times entitled To water
as beng -ar1 land ard made rice patches
u ancient E--l u dr. land he e7i-
1=-ca taken by the clu-lllssi11srs and the
st.i--lllz- evidence taken on the appeal
l. cQLIEl-Ctlry upon this point We
have examined the locality In our view
Il = quite probable that tie defendant has
CIT his rice patches westward Il the line
lt aLc-5Lt tar1 patches But there l.
---l--= II tie testimony and II the sp-
Es5r--ee u the locality which stulsly
and lo1dzralIgly points 70 a definite
reduction Of what has been granted to the
defendant II re set aside u modify the
lzc-=-1L q tie commissioners We have 10
data f-- Ez-1E another LLs. / different
ming would not b. better supported
than that which Is appealed from
There L reason for the conflict and III
certainty u the evidence HE question
o. b. determined + what areas we're once
Used t-r targ patches But previous 20
tIe culture u rice II this country. which
l. ~ only G few years date and the most
. lee
anon Il the Reciprocity Treaty II IST6.
the area II tar1 c1L1ure lad Greatly dim
lLlsEett There was not one fourth Of the
population existing which once suHsistsd
On ta-I- Land which lad beeu II tar0
patches was left dry used a. pasture and
o. -rzaE extent lad lost rs Characters
r--s as targ land Witnesses sometimes
speak q TIE sane plsce Of land as tsrU OK
s-la- according ul rs Use az the time L.
IL 81 testimony IL tins case that a block q
-zrg patches had neeu dried and used az a
EastEre- that :. a. the witnesses e1press
r. vas ku-s- But EGE tLa valus u such
lard tlr growing crGps Of rice has caused
them o. again claim all the water they
were once entitled TO- In the conversion
% nee patches many # the old lines are
lbEtersted The kuau1as OK tarU patch
banks are cat tim and often cut away al
together and the ries patches are extend
Ell over land which never had been planted
o taru- The IDENTITY 1f the situation l.
destroyed Witnesses therefore make
vague and euutrzdictury statements. af-
flrsil--g 10 satisfactory basis for decision
Is the present time both parties 10 this
elltr17arlfg have water enough fJr their
c--rIratl1a Last year vas q dry season
a-t tLa plaintiff had not enough He
clans that frll that fact II l. apparent
that BE- had been deprived 1fsoue portion
VI hi water by the defendant who had
enough But II l. not u be assumed a. a
fz1t that n ancient TINES and under
tEs ancient distribution Il the walers.
=71-e tar1 patch land id lot suffer II dry
ssa=ols- On the contrary We understand
that tLs supply was FTscarious A. 70 soue
lands While UlfaIIug a. to others fact
winch gave the latter greatly enhanced
va-Ee
Inns seeing 10 Satisfactory and definite
grounds f1r I-zEzg q different decision
ve hereby c0uEE1 the award Of the va
ter Commissioners
" = Castle f1r Plaintiff. Smith &
ILuEEt0n for Defendant
HlL1luIu- SEPT 18th 1854