The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1896-11-06

bill in equity was brought of the First
Judge First Circuit by the Wauku Sugar Company
domestic corporation, owning plantation III the Island
of Mani averng that defendant residing Wakapu on the
Island of Maui is lawfuy divertng and certain water
irrigation purposes which the plaintiff entitled and
praying for injunction restrain such diversion and
Defendant demurred the jurisdiction of the Court
grounds first that the subject matter controversy being
right within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Com
of Water rights for the District OF Waluk, and
secondly that equity has jurisdiction the Circuit Judge OF
the Second Circuit where the situate and the parties
reside, has exclusive jurisdiction.
The Circuit Judge sustained the demurrer the first ground
dismissed the bill by decree from which the plaintiff appeals
argument the ground made by defendant that
year statutory Commissioner has existed with
jurisdiction hear and determine all controversies respecting
rights and that the present statute Chapter 20 OF the
of 1885, In its third section coners exclusive jurisdiction
upon such Commissioners 1t reads 1t shall be the duty OF
within their several districts to hear and
respecting rights of private
and rights between individuals between private
individuals and the government"
by defendant that the Commissioner has had
authority his and the jurisdiction therefore
ample and must be deemed to be exclusive.
1t is and conceded that previous to the creation
special jurisdiction for the settlement of controversies
respecting water rights equity had jurisdiction in proper case
What effect did the establishment of this special court have
upon the superior jurisdiction in equity! Was the jurs
that of the law where the
be appropriately in that FORUM in equity
where could afford adequate remedy? Or the
jurisdiction exclusive
Endich on Interpretation Statutes 49, says
the general presumption against intention Dust the
Jurisdiction of superior strong leaning
against constituting granting jurisdiction
tribunal certain ousting restricting the
dcon of superior courts already possessed the
This principle adopted here in Brecer Chase Haw
127, affirmed in Stone Allen, I'D 618, and recognized in
Kdhai Rose, Haw 270.
See Sutherland Statutory Construction Sec 396.
There explicit expression of the intention of the
Legislature make the jurisdiction exclusive. We do not
find any such intention in the Water Rights Commission statute
1t affirmative only and does not destroy the jurisdiction IN
equity. But it urged that the statute Sec l. Chap. Is,
Laws of 1878 Comp Laws $780, which gives original and
jurisdiction present the Circuit Judge cham
be every original process whether by BILL writ petition
otherwise in which relief in equity is prayed for ercept
chen different provision is made, gives the Commissioners
exclusive jurisdiction because the creating that
makes different provision
the different provision be of such
character would expressly the jurisdiction in equity
Our statute of the Massachusetts statute and
the Supreme of that has made many decisions
affirming general presumption that the of special
class of does necessarily
the jurisdiction of the superior The construction
of the clause under discussion is not raised.
One such case is CIouston Shearer, Mass 200. The
statute Gen. CHI 1884, Secs 49, So provided that any per
possession of real property claiming of free
hold &C. may file petition in the Supreme Court against
adverse claimant who him to bring
action try the alleged title For the that the
remedy under the compee and adequate
supeede the remedy equity, the Court maintained
bill to quiet the title
Upon similar reasoning the in Fan Rirer o"
Company r. r. Allen 221, held that the remedy
under by information in the nature of quo
did deprive the of its jurisdiction in equity
in of private nuisance
the creating the Water Rights Commits
has provision for service of upon persons
its district except the doubtful substituted service by
publication does it appear give jurisdiction where title
to the land is involved where damages claimed
The Legislature certainly intended except only those
where equitable relief prayed for where the created
tribunal with exclusive Jurisdiction them
well arged by plaintiffs counsel that the jurisdiction
equity existing such the bar previous
of 1873 which expressly prescribed that the par
of the various classes of which equity
jurisdiction should be Gin addition the jurisdiction in