The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1900-06-30

Hawaian Islands, and the use of electricity upon the
tons In this country was at that time uncommon" '
The claims of the parties and the issue upon which - ,
Is sought, are thus stated in the pleadngs
Defendant claims that agreement with William p Y,
assigned aforesaid, gives it the right to use all A
OF the said Koula and Hanapepe streams for any do
purposes that using of the water of said streams irre
OF the place OF taking, at point included in the DEM
premises, at distance of several miles therefrom UPON 9TH
lands of the grantors and the right enter upon otb 1
OF the granors for the purpose of generating electricity for
use of defendants plantation and transmitting the same
plantation, is plantation purpose and under said aor
the defendant has the absolute and exclusive right and pr
from time to time to all much as it NAV reor
said waters for its plantation for such any other
purpose.
Plaintiff claims that the power of the falling and rnni
water of said koua valley for any purpose was not cnv
by said agreement William r. Watson; that defendant b.
not now the right to develop the power of running and
falling water of said Koua valley, above the junction Of ~
Palemo and Manawai branches of the said Koua river m tho
under said lease marked Exhibit B right was granted
him.
An adjudication is asked for upon the question as to eb
or not the Hawaiian Sugar Company has the right under said
agreement marked Exhibit "a to all or such as it NAV -
qure of the power of said stream during the term of its said
agreement for the purpose of generating electricity to be used
on its said plantation for its plantation purposes whether said
Fred j. Cross has the right proceed and develop said water
power under the terms of his said lease
The question be determined one of construction Of H.
lease to Watson In the first place. seems clear to us thar
the of that instrument with reference water do MOI
constitute absolute unrestricted grant, for the term of years
stated of the water the lessee but merely grant of e %
to use, for the purposes and with the limitations stated therein
much of such may be necessary said PURPOSES
Unless and until thus used by the lessee Tor his assignee the
lessons retain the control and ownership of those anu
may either use them themselves grant others the right
them such by the lessons grantee being subject
to be terminated any time upon The lessee himself using
them 1t further clear that under the the lease
the lessee may lead the the deed lands and
having done utilize their power generate electricity
said premises for thereon for plantation purposes and
this end may obtain and lead off such and from v
point in the streams named.
The crucial question: however, is whether lessee
has the right under the lease the power of the water
runs and falls the beds the generate electricity
even though such electricity be used the demsed prem
lses for plantation purposes and whether has the right
to construct OF set up for the purpose of generating and
Quoting such electricity lands other than those specifically
demsed such buildings machinery poles wires and other m
planes may be necessary accomplish that end
Upon the showing made in the statement of facts submitted
to we believe that neither of the parties
gave any thought way the other the of
ecuon to the question of the the power of the
and falls its natural channels for generating electricity
The issue really itself to this w.t. whether the
broad to include grant of the power claimed by the de
PENDANT
For the defense urged that under the power upon
the lands of the lessor and erect dams and other works
would be for the defendant utilize the power
the water the banks of the we'll upon the de
missed lands and that dams erected we'll enable 10
use the power of the water to divert the for else
where; and that SINCE conceded by the plaintiff defendant
may under the lease generate electricity with the aid Of the
power of the after the conducted the dc
missed premises it follows that defendant equally has the night
to make use OF that power at higher elevation lands
other than those demsed the difference being merely OF the
place of utilization.
1t is to be observed that the difference in place
presents the distinction that where the the lands
missed no question arise to the right of the lessee to erect
upon the land such buildings machinery may be meets
ary to obtain the power WHILE the other hand where the
use on land other than that demed by and bounds as
above stated the question of whether the lessee has been given
hJ 1nTlIo or.otlo, IL IL