The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1892-10-12

made, aud that the facts show an
onster by plaintiff of the defendant. /
The party alleging custer must /
establish 1T.
Dir. Claus Spreckels asserts posi-
lively that Eve Lad an agreement,
verbal agreement first with the late
Henry Curnwell that we should @
ahead and fence in as much as we
pleased on our side, but we should
build the fences so IA to keep the
cattle ont of the cane When asked
If he had any further agreement
with the Waikapu Sugar Company,
IN regard to it be said, L have seen
W. II. Cornwell there when l have
been down there and we have agreed
about the same as his father before
him, that we should go ahead and
plant cane as much as we pleased and
give him the balance for pasture, but
keep it in fence. 1t was not III writ
ing. AS they had the cattle and we
had the water we should fence in that
eide of the commons (meaning the
Haiku side), and they should occupy
the other side where there is more
grazing, but we should build the
fence"
John D. Spreckels, the president
of the plaintiff corporation, says in
his deposition, "that we had an un-
derstanding with w. Ii. Cornwell,
who was the president and manager
Of the defendant corporation, that
we (the plaintiff), could use the com
mons on our side of the sand hills,
and they to have the right to use the
commons on the Waikapu side. | had
better say we were to have the right
to use it on the Hawaiian Commercial
side of the sand hills and they to use
it on the Waikapu side of the sand
hills"
Mr.. Cornwell CIV. H. says that he
had a conversation with John ID.
Spreckels in regard to partition Of
the land and always told him that 81
thought the natural division Of this
land would be right straight through
the sand hills, and that if he had an
excess of acreage over and above
what we did, why, of course he would
be willing to pay for it. l always
thought that would be the natural
division or boundary line, and If we
had more property, or vice versa
that could be found by survey. My
idea was at that time (July, 1882, at
the meeting on the commons for a
settlement), to run a line through the
sand hills and to have asked them to
pay us for any amount of acreage in
excess that they might have on their
side over what we had on our side
and so come to settlement"
Mr.. Cornwell, however, says that
he never agreed or consented fol
himself or MIR. Macfarlane, OF the
Waikapu Sugar Company, that the
plaintiff should cultivate on then
side (the east side), OF the sand hills
but he also says that he never pro
tested against Mr.. Spreckels' OF the
plaintiffs fencing or planting any
part Of the common land because he
thought it could be amicably settled
and does not think by his acts he in
dictated his consent 10 their planting
and fencing.
Mr.. Macfarlane says that g neithei
I, nor Mr.. FL. Cornwell, nor any on'
on our behalf, ever at any time, II
any manner consented or agreed tina
Spreckels or the Hawaiian CONNER
cial Company should fence In or TAX
exclusive possession of any part o
the Waikapu commons, or shoui(
take any land on the east side Of tn
sand hills and the Waikapu Compsn.
the land on the west side, to 10,
knowledge" He says he applied t
Mr.. Spreckels In 1882 for a division
or settlement, which, as we hay
{ seen was futile, at the meeting on til
t commons. That many times there
} after he approached Mir. Spreckel
on the subject but was always PIT
] off. That he resumed it in San Nrar
3 cisco but could not unduly press til
5 matter because he was heavily i
t debt to Messrs. John D. Spreckels I
r Bros, Mr.. Spreckels' sons. That /
t 1887 he procured letter to be wri
/ ten to John D. Spreckels by Mr.. Corr
g we'll proposing that the value Of th
f land that had been used by eac
4 Company be appraised and tn
/ amount pooled and divided. Th'
0 each company reserve what numbt
of acres of cane land they wish, eac
Q paying an agreed sum per acre Il
L what they retain and the remalnd'
d to be divided, sold or leased as ma
2, be agreed upon. No reply came
], this. Another effort was made
1889, when Mr.. Macfarlane was free
II from his pecuniary obligations to Il
70 Spreckels' for settlement of tt
= commons when the parties met vii
IF MIR. @. r. Bishop and Mr.. A. j. Can
n wright, at Mr.. CarJwright's office
70 but the conference broke up when
letter was received by Mr.. Macfarlal
IF from G. Brewer & Co., suggestir
d that consolidation of the WaikaE
ut and Waikiki plantations was poss
d BILE. It was after this that N
p Spreckels bought Mr.. Cornwel
a. shares in the defendant company.
v, MIR. Macfarlane says that tt
IN purport of these conversations Wi
ID MIR. Spreckels was to bring about
r. settlement Of the case by some peac
TO able method-arbitratio 1 dor
a mean division or partition OF Il
if estate, but anything that would bril-
" about a settlement that would gi
or us our rights. The purport of t