The Hawaiian gazette., 1910-06-07
LAST MOVE BY
JUDGE PARSONS
Throws Out Pepeekeo Boundary
Case Without a
Decision.

"The testimony is insufficient" is
the basis of the decision given by Judge
Parsons, as boundary commissioner, in
the Pepeekeo case over which the judge
has been having very lively con-
troversy with the attorney general Is
department. The Judge dismisses the
case without prejudice" which means
practically no decision. The attorney
general IS department took the position
that Parsons ought to decide, while
Parsons said he was waiting for brief
from the attorney general. The reply
to this was that the encouragement
didn't care to file brief and that the
case was clear one anyhow, needing
no further evidence or argument. Par
sons final word is the following deci-
sion:
"The evidence in this case is insult
fcient to warrant the commissioner in
adjudging the boundaries of Sections
and of Kahua Second to be as al
legged by the petitioner, by the Terri
tory or by Emily P. Kinney.
GA preponderance of the evidence
shows that the Ahupuaa of Kahua,
awarded in 1852 to Kahonu, extended
in westerly direction to Huinawai, as
alleged by the petitioner; but the com
missioner win not adjudge the boundary
to be as claimed in the application, for
the reason that the petitioners inter
est therein is not disclosed by the evil
dence, no title having been proved, by
the introduction of title deeds or other
wise, to any portion of the said kono-
hiki land. The omission is fatal, for
the right to apply for certifcation of
boundaries is conferred by Section 353
of the Revised Laws only upon owners
of the land, and proof of such owner.
ship is indispensable.
"The Territory has introduced kama.
alma testimony, a portion of which has
been discredited, tending to show that
Kahua Second extends in westerly
direction only as far as Kananaka and
that the land lying between that point
and Huinawai is known as Kahua
Third. The Territory's claim that the
line runs from Kananaka to the north
ern boundary by course and distance as
alleged in the answer is based chiefly
upon the map attached to the Pelham
patent and upon Kanakanui's testi
mony as to the meaning of dotted
line shown thereon beyond the limits
of the land conveyed by said patent
There is nothing to show who made the
map or upon what authority the words
" Kananaka, end of Kahua Second -
were written thereon. The dotted line
is not straight. Kanakanui has esti-
mated the angle which it makes with
the Pelham boundary and has calculated
4 the distance represented by the extend,
ed line TO Makea Stream. Upon this
and similar testimony the commissioner
is asked TO fix definitely the western
boundary of Kahua Second. The ties
timony is insufficient.
AS to the boundaries Of Section 2
Of Kahua Second the answer of the
Territory does not set forth its claims
nor does the answer pray that the
boundaries OF said second section be
established otherwise than as asked by
the petitioner.
"The extent 10 which Emily p. Kinney
Is interested In the boundaries Of Sec
ton does not appear In her answer OF
In the evidence. The transcript (page
420) shnws that her counsel offered
what pnTp0ried 10 be deed 10 hil
client from one Jardao 10 about one acre
of land touched by the disputed bound
aries, but this offer was withdrawn
upon petitioner admission Of record
that tho said Emily T.. Kinney had
some Interest 10 The land.
"hoWheEe 10 fke pleoaingi o. proof