The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1907-06-24
RIGHT Of WAY
CASE DECIDED
Winston and Lee Let BUILDINGS
Stay Put---Mrs. kakuina's
Decision Reversed.

| In the case of Annie K Woolsey v
Lee Let and E. c. Winston, uran-
imous opinion of the Supreme Court
written by Chief Justice Frear and
joined in by Justice Wilder and Cir
| cult Judge De Bolt, reverses in GER
tain particulars upon the evidence a
decision of Mrs Emma Nakuina, Com
missioner of Private Ways and Water
Rights. It also decides that ga mere
sitting and adjournment to another
day is not a days hearing for the
purpose of taxing costs under r. L.
Sec. 22o3.''
It was a suit for an adjudication of
a prescriptive private. right of way
from the lower side of King street be-
tween Kekaulike and River streets in
Honolulu to the plaintiffs premises be-
tween the premises of the respective
defendants. The existence of the way
was not questioned It's width alone
was in dispute.
The lane is now 20 feet wide at its
entrance, and at various other parts
3.3, 3.5, "A to AZ, and 2.2 feet respec-
lively. The commissioner awarded the
plaintiff a way IL feet wide more or
less throughout, in accordance with her
claim, requiring q narrow strip to be
taken from Lee Let's land along the
entire length of his boundary on the
lane, and ordered Winston to remove
a pipe which he had placed in the lane
at its entrance for the purpose of car
rying off water from the roof, and to
give up a small triangle of land where
his wall cut across outside of his boun-
Diary. The defendants appealed.
All the buildings and fences about
the lane burned down in each of the
two great Chinatown fires of 1886 and
1900 and the testimony had largely to
do with conditions with reference to
those dates. Some of the witnesses
recognize that their memory is hazy
on this subject and others, the court
says, 'show that their estimates of
widths is far from accurate at the
present time. 1t is generally agreed
that the lane was wider at the crook
ed part in the rear than along it's
straight part in front. Doubtless the
width seemed greater at that early
date. especially TO the witnesses who
We're then young, and perhaps to all
when there were only fences along the
both sides with two-story buildings"
In considering the points raised the
court finds that the side of Lee Let's
building is conceded to be exactly up
on the boundary called for by the
deeds. At one stage the case was dis
missed as to Lee Let but he was
brought in nine months later upon a
motion claiming newly discovered evil
dence.
It is found that the Winston line at
some points is out of the position de-
scribed in the deeds, but that the new
lines were on the whole advantageous
not only for the erection of the build
ing but for the use of the lane The
of the whole matter is this:
1.-The plaintiff is entitled to a right
Of way bounded by the Winston and
Lee Let buildings as they stand and
to the removal Of the pipe on the Win
ston side in SO far as it interferes with
the use of the right of way, each party
to pay one-third of the stenographer's
fees, the remaining costs, including
charges for only fifteen hearings, to be
paid one-half by the plaintiff and one
half by Winston. The decision of the
is reversed TO the ex-
tent to which it is inconsistent here
with
The commissioner charged for TWEEN
ty-one hearings at the rate of Sc a
day. The record showed only seven
teen sittings, at two of which nothing
was done but to adjourn, and the
court finds that only fifteen hearings
should have been charged for.
Magoon & Lightfoot for plaintiff, w.
w Thayer and r. w Breckons for
Lee Let and Holmes & Stanley and c.
H Olson for Winston.