Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1906-01-27
TEXT Of DECISION
OF U. S. SUPREME COURT
IN FISHERY CASt

Following is the text OF the decision
of the United states supreme Court
In J. o. Carter, ct al. vs.. Territory OF
Hawaii, fishery rights case, concerning
which cable news OF the United States
Courts reversing the local courts was
received here several weeks ago. S. NJ.
Ballou represented In person Carter
and other trustees under tn ID. p. Bish
op will and +. w. Milyerton represent
ed the Territory by brief. MIR. Jus.
tice Holmes delivered the opinion OF IN |
U. $. Supreme Court:
u S COURT intro to come ........
This Is a proceeding to establish the
plaintiffs right to a several fishery OF
the kind described In Damon v. Ha-
wall, 1874 U. S. l54, and comes here
under the same circumstances as that
case did. The fishery in question Is a
yea fishery within the reef In Waialae
Xxi, island of Oahu, and is claimed by
metes and bounds In the complaint.
The plaintiffs are owners OF the ada.
cent land under royal patent follow
ing upon an award of the Land Com.
mission, and the only difference be.
tween this case and the former one Is
that in this the fishery Is not descrb.
ed in the royal patent, and that. apart
from the question of prescription, up.
on which we shall say nothing, the
plaintiffs have to rely upon the stat
utes alone. They offered evidence at
the trial that before the action OF the
king in 1899, those under whom the
plaintiffs claim title had enjoyed from
time immemorial rights similar to
those set out in the statutes, and also
that they had been In continuous, ex'
elusive and notorious possession OF
the konohiki right for sixty years.
They offered In short to prove that
their predecessor In title was within
the statutes and therefore owned the
fishery, II not being disputed that II
he did, the plaintiffs own II now. The
Judge rejected the evidence and en-
tered judgment for the defendant, and
on exceptions this judgment and that
In Damon v. Hawaii were sustained al
the same time In one opinion by the
Supreme Court. IA Haw. 465.
) We deem II unnecessary to repeal
J the ground OF our intimation In the
former case, that the statutes ther'
: referred to created vested rights. W.
simply repeat that In our opinion sucl
| was their effect. The. fact that the!
. neither identified the specific grantees
nor established the boundaries, Is i'm
! material when their purport as
4 grant or confirmation Is decided. 1t Il
I enough that they afforded the mean
. Of Identification, and that presumably
. the boundaries can be fixed by refer
. ence TO existing facts, or the applica
r lion OF principles which have beel
! laid down in cases of more or less sim
Mar kind.
Q The omission Of the plaintiffs pred
= ecessor in title to establish his RICH
D to the fishery before the Land Commits
? sion does not prejudice their case. Sc
Kenoa v. Meek, 6 Haw. So, That CON
mission was established to determin
!. the title to lands as against the Ha
waiian Government, In practice
treated the fisheries as not within 1t
Jurisdiction, and It would seem Z
have been right in its view. See Al
. eeni v. Wong Ka Mau, Haw. 81.
!. Judgment reversed.