The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1899-01-28

had rights in common with others these he a1oped the
Company to use at the time Or Wight acquired this 200
acres of Halawa by Kamehaeha I'LL dated I'd Sep
ember 1851 And time time thereafter ne acquired
nearly of the land of IIaawa.
This admission of Mr. Bonds being against his interest is
strong evidence.
MANAGER C,apin now deceaseD in his letter of August
9Th 1885, says discussing with plaintiffs Treasurer at
Honolulu the advabily of renting DR.. Wight Alma
1a water Of plaintiffs his ranch land other than
Uaawa advises the nominal rental OF 500 per
year. "for past faros from the Doctor an the ~ater h"e
This can only such the Doctor (deendan con
trolled and that this Haawa undisputed
These the line, the Commissioner in his de
cision thinks from Aamakao other water
It becomes necessary explain this "Aamakao water De
PENDANT had sold plaintiff wood lot of of the land
OF "Aamakao' from which plaintiff the frewood and
fumed its plantation with ''Halawa water Moreover,
of Aamakao had to It, 1t passed
to the grantee and be said to have been favor by
DR. Wight to allow grantee it. Counsel both sides
admit IN substance that past does refer Aamakao
water Kupunaokane (See 61O OF record)
The plaintiff company at first based its right portion
of the Kupunaoane for milling and domestic purposes
by having acquired tracts OF kao land IN the
ravne of Haawa Manager Williams letter dated January
8 1888 says: I'm my letter of yesterday forgot to answer
about Haawa water. The that Baldwin used to run
down wood was DR.. Wghs land, but X s. G. (panti
has two rights to that water below naming
tho Po land acquired by plaintiff and another piece below
bought later and being the land leased to Chaplin
in 1879"
This claim to Haawa-Kupunaokane water as being
right to portion Of it appurtenant to the parcels OF
land in alawa the plaintiff is inconsistent with the
claim made plaintiff his petition that the right to the entire
Kununaokne water was acquired the land of Halaua by
adverse imnemoraly and for than twenty years
We find the present claim not made until Chapn5
We do not refer of Dr. Nights llalawa water with
MANY restrictions and conditions to the plaintiff company made
pent of the between the parties without
waving rights claimed by plaintiff and Its covenants
are not alleged in have been preached by defendant
Nor do we what proportion OF the kupunaokane
water plaintiff is entitled f any bv of Its ownership
of kalo land As above said the Commissioner was
not called upon authorized by the peangs to ascertain the
amount of water o which each party is entitled
Many points made by counsel on the evidence might
he commented upon have discussed the evidence su
cientv to show the right claimed by plaintiff Is not
sustained by the evidence This should be the case
IN order to authorize the injunction to deprive
the defendant of the from the hpnaokane
water head In order to authorize injunction the plaintiff
right be clearly proved
The Judgment Commissioner vacated and the com
plaint of the plaintiff dismissed. Costs to follow Judgment
W r. Castle and p. L. Wedrer for plaintiff
Kinney te BdlIou, for defendant.