Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1910-10-07
OPINION OF THE COURT BY DE BOLT. J.

On June . 1910 plaintiffs filed their declaration claiming
actual damages against defendant in the $500 for
trespass qua'e - "su'a fregit laid with contnuando
The injury complained of is alleged have occurred
March ~ 1902 than year prior the filing of the
declaration, which alleges that defendant the date last
mentioned broke and entered the land of plaintiffs and did
then and there nure the close of plaintiffs by depositng and
causing be deposited thereon large quantities of water rub
bish earth and stones thereby rendering the land of plaintiffs
unsuitable for cultivation and did then and there down and
cause to be torn trees crops shrubs and plants thereon planted
and growing, and did break fill up and utterly destroy and
be broken, filled and utterly DESTROYED irrigation
bitches which have been dug and placed thereon BY plaintiffs
great cost and expense to plaintiffs, and did undermine and
cause to be undermined plaintiffs land located within said
close'
Defendant interposcd demurrer the declaration ON the
ground that the action lis barrcd by limitation of by
and under the provisions of Act the Session
Laws of 1907 The demurrer sustained and plaintiffs
excepted.
Act l3 provides that Acons the recovery of compcn
saion for damage or injury to persons property must be in
sittcd within next after the of action
and not after" Prior to this the time within which
factions for trcspass upon lands could be commenced lin
tied to six years after the of action accrued Scc
1871 II. I.)
Act 113 does not purport repeal Sec. 1871 r. l.. We
held however in Garcia Kehaha Sugar Co. antc p 1907,
which wk action for personal injuries that Act 13 APP
Piled and that the action barred because brought with
in year after the date which the injury complained of
occurred. The which justified the in its
cluon in that case equally applicable in the be-
fore namely that these enactmcnts the time within
which such actions be instituted be harmonzed
that they inconsistent with and cpugnan each other
that they stand together and that Act being the
last expression of the legislature upon the subject prevails
Therefore, See 1871 II. L. the time within which actions
for the of compensation for damage inquiry
property must be instituted is repealed by
Implication -.5.t.f t" +Av
Plaintiffs contend however, that these stand
together regards the action of spa cdus freg
and that while the later enactment is Inclusive of all
therein mentioned it does not include apply TO actions of
this They argue that Act 13 applies only
in which the gist of the action damage injury
property and that does apply action of trepass
gae clauSun, fregt, which primarily action
the of which is the disturbance of the an that
whatever is done after the breaking and entering but
gravaon of damages Whatever force, if this argument
might have in involving the sole question of disturb
of the possession, need not at this time In the
bar addition such damage he implied by the
breaking and entering of the close the declaration shows
actual and physical injury to the property itself and plain
tifs emphasize this phase of the by the facts set
forth the declaration well by claiming substantial
damages in the of $500 The main object of the action
is compensation for the physical injury the land
Plaintiffs also contend that the declaration shows continu
ing rcspass We do in this view. The facts al
egc that the trcspass consisted of single tortious act
upon the land and that the injury permanent and not conn
uing in its nature.
The facts disclosed bv the declaration bring the within
the provisions of Act 49, Therefore, in opinion the dc"
murrer properly sustained
The execution is ovcrrnled.
KINNEY, BALLOU, PROSSER d ANDERSON for
plaintiffs.
CASTLE &c WILMINGTON for defendant.