The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-01-18

SHOWS
that an acre of ta the poorest marketable yield and grade
was worth during the times stated $780, of average yield
grade 5000 and of the yield and grade $780, these APP
parenty being gross values No evidence introduced tend
ing to show the of growing taro, per acre.
1t also appeared that December 1885, plaintiff executed
lease portion of his land about one acre and three fourths
area for the of at annual rental of sixty
dollars second year. however be rent ree and there
evidence tending to show the ees abandoned the place
in July 1897 on the lack of water caused by defend
ants acts.
further evidence tending show that during the
periods already referred the plaintiff compelled pur
chase for domestic at maximum cost Of 1926
week. for such from spring distance
from his residence about 100 feet than ditch
from which he formerly obtained water for the purposes
Assuming for the purposes of the decision branch of
the ca that the justified IN hndng from the evidence
that the plaintiff made substantial change in the loca
ton of that portion of his ditch which the
and the defendants land and finding that he had acquired
prerptve right the through that ditch
the defendants land that change, if made with the
defendants consent implied still of the opin
that the verdict be sustained for the that the
awarded and unsupported by the evidence
favorable the plaintiff The evidence permits of three
methods of computing the plaintiffs loss by acertainng @ the
the stated of the purchased by the plaintiff
O the difference in the rental value of the land with and with
shown by the lease and @ the proceeds devabe
from the sale of grown the premises per 1t
be added together and the grand total awarded the plaintiff
for he his home and have for purposes
of sae he cultivate and sell the and the
time the land for the growing of rice The expend
ed by plaintiff for during the d years not than
$685. the due from the esees for the leased portion
of the land for the full of the lease $3.50 bu do
express the opinion that plaintiff entitled the
of the for the full of the ease three
of land in q years, estimating crop of taro per
estimate extremely favorable to the planwoud produce
$500 per per CROP $780, and 5000 per per
crop the average rate $780, and the total of the eight yea
rental of the leased land $780, plus the possible proceeds from
of the remainder $500 $780, would be $3.50.
$780, according whether regarded worth 5000
$500. per acre.
Designating the fact that these calculations made with
any deductions for the of raising STILL the view
most favorable for the plaintiff the evidence thus far considered
for only $3.50 Or the most $21OO of the
awarded in the verdict It be observed that these figures
liberal the plaintiff for the evidence tends show
that his land inferior and below the average quality More
while the land here credited with the ability produce
5000 and $500 the fact remains that and
reeours of including and onehalf of the
land leased by the plaintiff for term of ten years for
total of sixty dollars per year than forty dol
lars per per year for the wet land.
The trial instructed the jury that recovery could be
had in this action under the third of the decaraon
that with reference the alleged wrongful discharge of plaintiff
from defendants employ Upon the evidence only other
possible element of damage suggested to w.t. the additional
and inconvenience of obtaining for domestic from
the spring instead of the ditch No evidence
adduced from which the jury could find what was
that there any additional The evidence least
vague the subject of inconvenience and certainly such
support award of either 1856 $1,000
It clear from the record that the plaintiff the trial relied
for recovery upon the Infringement not of the natural right
which he possessed by of his ownership of the bank
take from the his land but of right
nv have NV
duct through artificial ditch situated in part the
defendants land The law well settled that when has
acquired either by express grant by prescription
the land of another he may not substantially alter the mode
of using without the express implied of the
of the serven estate; and where in this case the
right to maintain ditch watercou the of the
dominant substantially change the direction
location of such ditch without such
any such substantial change made without such consent
| Z l. - ll