The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1893-03-15
KoHALA WATER CASE.

Important Decision Rendered by
Chief Justice Judd IN Favor of
T. H. Davies ct al.
Chief Justice Judd has rendered a
decision on the important water
rights case of The Kohala Sugar
Company VS.. T. III. Davies, T. r.
Walker, John Mcclure and Godfrey
Brown, Trustees of the Estate of
James Woods, deceased. The mat
ter came on for hearing on Deem
Der 81, 1892, and the BULLETIN at the
time gave a full description of the
issues.
The plaintiff company owns lands
in Kohala, adjoining and occupying
the country on both sides of and in
Guiding a ravine called the Waiana-
ca gulch. Defendants are possessed
of lands adjoining those of plaintiffs
on the south or southwesterly side
at higher altitude. These lands of
plaintiff and defendants are so stu
ated that the natural flow of water
is from defendants lands on to and
across plaintiffs lands.
There is an ancient spring on de-
PENDANTS lands about mile from
lands of the plaintiff, from which
the water has always flowed out and
down and upon the lands of plain
tiff, through waterway called Wal
akanana, running into Waianaea
gulch. In times of heavy rain the
flow is large, but ordinarily it is
small. The bill of plaintiff (Kohala
Sugar Coz alleges that defendants
intend to divert the water by build
ing dam on their own land, etc.,
and that they had actually begun
such diversion of the water. A pre-
liminary injunction was prayed for
and obtained, the plaintiff filing a
bond for damages, costs, etc.
Defendants in their answer deny
that the water in the Waianaea gulch
comes from the spring on their land.
They admit that they intend to take
the water from the spring for the
purpose of watering their live stock,
and deny that such use would inter
fere with any right of the plaintiff.
They produced much testimony to
show that the spring in question,
Waipuhi, is supplied by percolation
from the banks and is independent
of the swampy ground below it, and
of the water which supplies the
plaintiffs ditch at Pohakea. An ex-
pertinent by Mr.. E. p. Low, the de-
PENDANTS manager, shows that as
the swamp about $50 feet below
Waipuhi was being drained Waipuhi
pool filed up, having previously
been drained off by syphon.
From all the evidence His Honor
is of opinion that in the dry season
the water seen here and there in the
gulch comes into it from the north
or Hilo side, and that the taking OF
water by defendants at Waipuhi, OIL
little way below it, will not affect
or sensibly diminish the water which
the plaintiff is entitled to take al
Pohakea miles below The testimon,
of Mr.. Low is not contradicted. The
Court does not find it established
that there is continuous stream
of subterranean or otherwise, from
Waipuhi to Pohakea, and as the
burden is upon the plaintiff to es
tablish this fact, the bill must fai
and the injunction with it.
The Court finds that it is unneees
!. sary, since the plaintiff has not es
tablished that the water it uses a
Pohakea comes from Waipuhi, t,
discuss the law ably presented b.
counsel, and concludes: at is onl,
essential to add that the pool O
Waipuhi is entirely in defendant:
land and they have been accustomed
for a long period of time to waite
their stock there. This right beini
the supply of a natural want as ad
, mitted by all authorities, it is not a
unreasonable use of it to divert
by means of pipe to where, o
their own land, it can be more cor
veniently used for. the same pun
y pose"
w. R. Castle and Thurston
Frear fpr plaintiff. r M Hatch fC