The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1909-08-10
AAMAKUA
Ditch CASE
IRRIGATION COMPANY
FILES A CROSS BILL AGAINST
HAMAKUA SUGAR COMPANY.

the amended complaint of Honokaa
Sugar Company, Ltd. 1t denies the al
legation that the respondent, from
January 1, 1907, to May "a, 1909, has (
been supplying and delivering water
to petitioner at six several points or
outlets along it's ditch which have
been designated by petitioner. Res
pondent alleges that since July l, 1907,
the delivery of all water by respon- (
dent to petitioner has been made at
Puualala weir in accordance with an
agreement of June 20, 1907 between
the now contending parties.
The sole and only agreement, the re-
spondent says, which exists or has ex-
listed since the last mentioned date lis
to the effect that the water delivered
by this respondent to said petitioner
under its said agreement shall be mea-
sured at Puualala weir on said ditch,
and that delivery thereof for the pur-
pose of messing the same and ascer-
tanning the amount to be paid there
for shall be taken by said petition
at said point"
In its cross bill the respondent men
lions its change of corporate name by
authorized amendment to it's articles
of association from Hamakua Ditch
Co, Ltd, to Hawaiian Irrigation Co.,
Ltd 1t proceeds to relate the pro-
ceedings in the present litigation,
showing that an agreement was made
in open court on June 2 that, for the
purpose of settling the real controversy
in issue, the place of measurement of
the water should be raised by answer
and cross bill. In conformity with
that agreement a statement of facts is
made, in which it is represented that
Pacific Sugar Mill, a co-contractor
with the Honokaa Sugar Co., and the
latter have continuously to the pres
ent time measured the water deliver
ed to the said Puualala weir and have
exercised all the rights of ownership
over the same at said Puualala weir,
arbitrarily distributing and others, in
such proportion as they see fit, with
out consulting your cross petitioner
and without your cross petitioner be-
ing advised of the ultimate distribu-
ton of the water"
1t is alleged that Honokaa Sugar
Co. in accordance with the agreement
erected house in the vicinity of Pun
alala weir and at is own cost placed a
gauge alongside that of Hawaiian Irri-
cation Co. and placed its agent at the
weir to watch the measurement of wa
ter and to regulate it's distribution.
Also, that without consulting the Irri-
cation company and without it's know
ledge or consent, but in conformity
with the agreement about measure
ment at the weir, the Sugar company
has built weirs ana diverted water
over them without notifying the Irri-
cation company of the amount of the
water so diverted or to whom the same
was diverted, etc. Relying on the
I agreement of the Sugar company to
pay for all water delivered to it at
Puualala weir, the Irrigation company
has measured the water delivered at
that point and no other, and the res
! pOndent says that in the event that
it should be determined that measure
ment should be had at another point
or other points the respondent will
be wholly unable to arrive at any cor
rect estimate or computation of the
vOlue of water delivered by ii at such
ether point or points.
1t is further alleged that Honokaa
! Sugar Co has on several occasions
cold and dalivarad to tba Du,,oIo Io
Plantation Co. water led through the
ditch of Hawaiian irrigation Co.,
which water had been taken only upon
the measurement at Puualala weir and
sold only upon said measurement.
1t is complained that HoDokaa Su-
gar Co has withheld from payment on
measurements at Puualala weir and
neglected and refused to pay, the sum
of S2314.04, and threatens to withhold
from each semi-annual settlement the
difference between the amount shown
to be due by measurements at Pun
alala weir and by measurements al
point alleged to have been designat.
ed by Honokaa Sugar Co. below said
q weir.
The cross petitioner prays that the
, amended bin be dismissed, and tina
= it be decreed that all water sold tC
. Honokaa Sugar Co. from June 20. 1907
and all to be sold to 1t hereafter un
der the existing contracts and agree
= ments, shall be measured at Puualal;
weir and paid for according to sucl
measurement, and that judgment b.
t given to the cross petitioner for tn,
] amount above stated, with interest ant
, costs.
D Thompson & Clemens and E. M
; Watson are attorneys for responder
D and cross petitioner.