The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1893-09-26

his interest IN this lsnd 20 MeSsrS &.
". M2etSrlSne Sn6 W. II, Cornwsll,
the agreement 10 divide 'SsS without
binding effect upoa the moissy nov
held cy the defendant corporation.
Ths plaintiff. the HsESiisn CONNER
essl scd ScSSr ConpSny, foreign
corporation, had 6s-un operations Is
s sugar plantation IN this country
previous TO 1852 bCt the title 10 its
property Was, including the interest
IN the WSikspG Commons. in ClSuS
Sp-ecksiS until 1855 when Il wSs
transferred 20 the corporation Mr.
Sp-ecSsls hsd IN 1852 S controlling
interest II the corporation, which
continued 70 the dsts Of this suit.
In April q Msy. 1872, the employees
o. the Hawaiian Commercial Srd
Sugar Company begSl 70 fence IN
snd cultivate n Sugar esns some
land On the Wsikspa Commons con
Gguo1s 70 Its other cane fields in the
iznd Of WSiluku. snd whether the
title 70 one half OF the Wsi-
kspc Commons was then IN
Su-eckelS OF his corpOrstiOn
i uuessansisl. IS It seems 10 rs.
since the corporation hiss sdopsed
his sets IN this respect and reaUed
the benefit OF them Snd would not De
SLOWED 10 plsSd want Of title IN II
az the time OF the occupation Year
by ye4r the corporation took IN more
lsnd- plowiug It up, fencing and
plznGng Il fed by field, until i hSd
brought under cultivation IN sugar
czns, though nos sn ST shy one time,
some fu<ty-6vs hundred OF five thous
snd sexes OF the common property
Upun this It brought Estar TO I'M
gate the cane, bought from the Wal
bee Sugsr ConpSny and led from
the Wsihss river, Sad wafer from its
own ditch leading from the district
Of Hsmskus- and transported the
cane when harvested to It's own mills
by means OF railways The plaintiff
corporation fenced and maintained
n fence the lsn6 which it cultivated
All thst part Of the Wsikspu Com
mons on the Wsikspu side Of the
sand hills and whatever wss not IN
der fence By the plaintiff corpora
ton being u1inclosad. was used for
grazing BY the defendant corporation
f0r It's own Gnd other persons cattle.
and this company slsO enclosed and
cultivated N sugar cane for q short
tine three parcels Of land On the
WsiEs1u side q the sand hills
suo1ue-1E 60 T0T acres snd also en-
closed. and hiss -ver since used SIS 6
grazing paddock some $50 acres OF
land s5tGatsd uesr Maalaas Bay Inc
6etsciznt corporation has received
some Inc1usiisrable suns OF money
for pasturinE animals OF the unen-
closed portions Of the common estate,
keeping an seeount thereof
Al this common produces 3 good
growth Of grass from winter rains
which dries up II summer. but It Is
impossible 20 produce crops Of sugar
cane upon It without the use Of
water f0r It's irrigation W 4 Corn
vel was ususger OF the Waikspu
ulsntstion IN 1876. and has continued
10 be such manager up TO the date OF
this suit. covering 3 period previous
60 and ever since liz ineoTpOra-
ton. In 1882 when the plain-
tif began 70 plo#, fence and
ealtiTats scr0ss the line and II the
the COMMON property, It Ess noticed
By Mr. CoEu9el- the manager OF the
Wsikspu plantation, who notified his
tEea usrt1sr. Mr. Mscfzrlane. Of the
fze5- Mr.. MEcfsrlzre then applied
10 NJ. Suysckels for 6 % division or
8 settlement and ne and Mr..
SUreckels agreed 70 meet upon the
land With 9 surveyor and ascertain Il
It could De divided The parties met
N July. 1892 went over g portion OF
the LAID together, bat cane to 10
sgreena1t- Mr. SpreekeIs not eI
uEessly declining to divide, but dis
missing the subject when approached
b. NJ Msctzrisne, saying : it was
MT an easy matter 10 divide the
land
Both parties to this suit say that
they never ct any time denied the
title OF the Osher IN this land. Both
M CoruEeu and Mr. Mscfsrlsue
testify that they Isyer, ct any time,
asked 10 Be allowed to use any pOE-
ton Of the common estate inel1ded
within the fence Of the plaintiff e5r
porsli0n and cultivated BY 1t, and
also that the defendant corporations
occupation Of sdch portion Of the
land g It did occupy was never eI-
prsszly interfered With or objected
TO By Mr. Spreeksls OF the plaintiff
There l. 10 dispute as to the fact
that each party plaintiff and de-
feudeut- has used and occupied sep
srzte portions OF the common estate
fr1u ISs2 70 the date Of this suit-
and each has used that portion OF
tEs land contiguous 30 the rest OF
rs property Thus far the facts OF
this case g outlined above are not
disputed We come now 10 the
question q law whether to sntItls 2
rsnzut in Common 20 sn account I
frou his co-tsUsut IN custer, OF
WhzE Is equivalent Is essential 10 4