The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1896-06-29

strengthen the growth of the plant and
again a week or two before the grain is
harvested, in order that the land may
| be hardened while the laborers are
walking through the fields and reaping
the rice 1t is obvious that this is neces-
sary for the convenience of the labor
ers, and that heads Of rice be not laid
when cut in soft mud. Then, too, the
land must not be water-soaked when
the first blowing for the next crop is
being done. We find from the testimony
and from inspection of the premises
that the backing up of the water by
this dam will obstruct somewhat the
prompt and effectual draining of the
plaintiffs land. The presence of water
backed up from the river in plaintiffs
drains will undoubtedly have this eff
feet. The plaintiffs right to proper
drainage should not be interfered with
by defendants dam, and plaintiffs are
entitled to decree ordering defendants
to remove all the gates from the dam,
whenever, on reasonable notice, the
plaintiffs require this to be done in or
der that they may drain their land.
Rice cultivation in this neighborhood
is so similar in character on the plan
tations of the respective parties that
the defendants can readily adapt their
work to that of plaintiffs and have the
draining required for their plantation
occur at the same time with the plain
tiffs'. As regards the dam, in times of
large freshets self-interest on the part
of the defendants would require them
to open the gates of the dam whenever
the rise of water would seem to threat
en- their neighbors' land, in order to es-
cape or lessen their liability for dam
age.
1t remains for us to consider the first
ground taken by plaintiffs counsel,
that the Circuit Judge, having ordered
the injunction to issue upon the facts
as found by him, the findings made by
him are as binding and conclusive upon
the Appellate Court as would be the
verdict of jury. Many cases are cited
in support; among them are Monting
V. Leong Kau, Z Haw., 1856, where this
effect is given to a Masters report, and |
Nawahi V. Kekaula, Haw., 43, where it |
is claimed this effect was given to a |
decree of single justice, but in this |
case the Appellate Court found the evil |
dence sufficient and very strong to |
support the decree" While great weight |
has always been given to the findings |
of fact of the judge who first heard |
the case, and this should be so because |
he has seen and heard the witnesses, |
this Court has also felt at liberty to re-
view carefully all the evidence sent up
in appeal cases, and to form such con-
illusions upon them as seems proper
This having been the practice for so
long a time, we do not feel at liberty
to disturb it.
The injunction prayed for and al
lowed should be dissolved without pre-
JUDGE to the plaintiffs right to renew
application for the same whenever
events shall justify it, and a decree will
be signed, ordering the removal by de-
PENDANTS of the gates Of the dam upon
reasonable notice whenever the plain
tiffs require it in order to facilitate the
drainage of their land.
Costs divided
A. F. JUDD.
Hartwell, Thurston & Stanley and c.
Brown for plaintiffs. J. A. Magoon and
w. S. Edings for defendants
Honolulu, May 80, 1896.