The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-03-08
PULLING
QUERY.
Is propounded to
the Circuit
Court.
CANNOT DECIDE
TIE WATER MARK
In the Case of the Territory VS..
the Ex-Queen Now in the
Circuit Court.

} Wv mark and what constitutes low
water mark?'' This question
has caused an avalanche of documents
} to be rushed into the Circuit Court by
the respective parties to the suit OF the
Territory VS.. Her Majesty Liliuokalani
J and John Wilson. The Territory contends
that the defendants have violated the
J law IN removing sand from Waikiki
beach at high water mark, and yester-
, day Attorney General E. P. jD1le filed
. a lengthy brief in support of his arsu-
ment
!. The brief is an elaborate one, the Con-
, stItution of the Hawaiian Monarchy, es
tablished in 1910 under Kamehameh1 IL.
being cited He says it follows that this
, monarch and his premier exceeded their
powers in attempting to convey TO low
, water mark and that so much of deed
, as purports 10 convey title between
high water mark and low water is null
and void.
He goes on 10 state that IAN examirla-
ton of authorities will show beyond
, question not only that the title of the
. public the State or nation. extends to
high water mark, but that high water
mark IS that swashed by the waves Of
ordinary high tide. The high
water mark of today is the limit of the
| line washed by the incoming tide at o.
binary high tide; and year from to-
. day, extraordinary changes excepted
high water mark will be the lint OF TIE
line washed by ordinary high tides of q
year from today"
In commencing his brief the Attorney
General quotes from the Constitution of
1870 the first written Constitution Of the
Hawaiian Monarchy, which conta MS
! among others the following section, upon
which Mr. Dole lays considerable stress
'Kamehameha / was the founder CT the
Kingdom and to HIM belonged all the
J land from end of the Islands 10 the
other, though 1T was not his own private
property. 1t belonged to the chiefs and
people in common, of whom Kamehame-
ha 1 was the head and had the MANAGE
ment of the landed property.
Wherefore, there was not formerly,
and is not now, any person VINO could
or can convey away the smallest portion
of land without the consent of the one
who had, or has, the direction of the
Kingdom
The following resolution passed By the
Privy Council. August 20, 1850, is quoted
in the brief as follows:
Resolved That the rights IF the King
as Sovereign extend from high water
mark marine league to sea and to all
navigable straits and passages among
the Islands, and no private right can be
sustained, except private rights of fish
ing and of cutting stone from the rocks.
as provided for and reserved by law"
Following this the Acts passed during
the reign of Kamehameha III by the
Mobiles and Representatives are quoted
, at length, bearing upon the subject. He
also cites many authorities wherein the
SI1ier ,-lrfB fro md
upon which the Attorney General bases
the entire case for the Territory.
SCHAEFER VS.. MGREw
In the $1,000 damages case of Frank
, Schaefer VS.. DR.. John S. McGrew, the
First Circuit Court yesterday gave judg-
= ment, upon motion of plaintiffs attor-
. neys, to the plaintiff for his costs in
lcurred, declaring the defendant in de-
|, fault. The costs. shown by the at
! torneys bill filed yesterday, amount to
$3.50.
F.. w. Macfarlane and August Ahrens
yesterday filed their annual account as
guardians of Ruth and George Richard
son, minors. charging themselves with
balancing sums of receipts and expendi-
lures at S16,S50.77.
A replication to the answer of the de-
PENDANT was filed by plaintiff in the
case of Emma M Nakuina VS.. J: II.
Schnack yesterday, denying the defend
ants ownership to the land alleged to
have been trespassed upon and demand
ing judgment against the defendant, to-
gether with costs of suit.
CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS.
The case of John Wilson, defendant, in
re the Territory of Hawai- VS.. Her Maj
esty Queen Liliuokalani, charged with
contempt of court in carrying away
sand from below the high water mark
TAT Waikiki beach against the injunction
/ of the Court, was heard yesterday morn
ing Wilson was fined 500 and costs.
The fine was Immediately paid. Wilson
was represented by Attorney A. A. Will
der. The defense was that defendant
! had taken steps to avoid violating the
/ Injunction, and Wilson stated on the
stand that he had located the h gh wa
ter mark and set stakes for, the guidance
of his six men, who were instructed not
J to go nearer than six feet to the line
Surveyor Maynard testified that the
I mean tide level is established by a long
series of observations in mild weather
and that in these Islands the high water
mark is about one foot above the line.
The defense held that the injunction
covered only that zone of beach covered
by the rise and fall of two feet.
MAUNALEI SUGAR co. CASE.
: The Judge of the First Circuit Court
yesterday issued an order outlining the
powers and duties of T. McCants Stew
art, the receiver appointed by the Court
to take charge of the property of the
insolvent Maunalei Sugar Company, Linn
I tied. The receiver is authorized to insti.
tute and defend suits in the name of the
] company and to make sale, under order
of the Court, of all real and persona
I property belonging to the company, 8
I special proTiso being made authorizing
and empowering him to sell at public
! auction or private sale the steam launch
' referred to in the various suits, ant
leaving the manner and time of sale en-.
tirely tosthe discretion of the receiver.
Despite the fact that a son was bory
to the wife OF Charles r. Ramsay yes
E. terday morning, the happy father con