The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1903-11-17

compromise" He would have nothing
to compromise with the territory for
the reason that he is not injured by its
acts.
| This Interpretation does not mean
that the land shall be offered to the
! injured abutter at reasonable price in
exchange or settlement of a claim for
damages that he may have on account
of the vacation of street or that the
amount of such claim for damages
shall be estimated by the Superintend-
ent of Public Works and credited on
the price of the land. This of course
would be within one meaning of the,
word compromise" but the word in
| this statute is undoubtedly used in an
other sense, namely, as IAN agree
! ment or compact adopted as means
of superseding an undetermined con-
troversy." Cent. Dict.
OF two abutting owners on an aban-
doned highway, one has the same free
and convenient access to his premises
after as before the vacation while the
access of the other to his premises is
entirely cut off, No offer in comprom-
Use could be made to the first for the
reason that he has sustained no injury
anu las HOtiliHS ~ compromise WITH
the Territory but between the latter
and the Territory there exists IAN un-
determined controversy on account of
his property taken and his right de-
stroyed by the abandonment of The
street. The latter is the abutter( to
whom the land must be offered before
sale and the former although an abut-
ter is not within the terms of the stat
ute and has no right under it.
The abutter whose access to the
highway is cut off by the vacation of
the street if the abandoned land goes
to stranger will be injured if not
permitted to buy the abandoned por-
ton while if the offer is made to him at
a reasonable price for a reasonable time
and he purchases he would not be in
jured.
The evidence shows that the respond
ent. Rose, was an abutter on the aban-
doned street; that the land conveyed
was between her premises and the
highway, Fort street, and that her only
outlet TO the highway was over this
land; that the complainant was an
abutter to a small part of the land but
that none of it lay between his prem
ises and Fort street and that his access
to Fort street was as free and con-
venient after as before the abandon
ment; that while it would doubtless
have been to Smiths advantage to own
the abandoned street in order to en-
able him to exchange it with Mrs. Rose
for another tract of her land which he
desired still he was not deprived CT
any property right by the abandonment
of the street or denied any right given |
him by law by the failure of the SUI
perintendent of Public Works to offer
him the land lin compromise
By the offer in compromise to Mrs. |
Rose and her acceptance she obtained |
an outlet to the highway and her Claim |
for damages that would have accrued |
had the land been sold to complainant
or any other person was superseded
BY CHIEF JUSTICE FREAR.
L concur in the foregoing conclusion, |
but express no opinion as to the signifi- |
canoe of the words lin COMPROMISE"
in the statute, except that the con- |
struction of those words contended for |
by the plaintiff, TO the effect that they !
require the entire land (e. g., a long |
street that is closed) to be offered as a
whole TO all the abutters to be divided |
among themselves in compromise with
each other, clearly cannot be sustained.
That construction would violate both |
the language and the spirit of the sec
ton and be unreasonable and impracti-
cable. The words Gin compromise" in |
this section are to say the least used I
somewhat loosely and their meaning |
is very obscure.
The Chief Justice reasons that the
law requires the land to be offered |
to all the abutters where there are
several, as it would be unfair to offer
the whole to one of them, adding:
The only alternative would be to |
divide the land and offer each part to |
the abutter on that part. That would |
be the fair way and evidently the way |
called for By the spirit OF the statute.