Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1915-06-15
Famous Case Which Goes
Back to 1843 Finally Settled
BY U. S. Supreme Court Aft
er One Favorable Decision
cABLEGRAM SAYS EARLIER
DECISION NOW REVERSED
Judge Robertson's Opinion and
Attorney Withington's Argu-
ments are Believed to Have
Moved. Tribunal to Unusual
Finding-Second Appeal on
Allied Case But Points Were
Virtually the Same in Both

A famous legal fight with its roots
fer back in Hawaiian history; inter
woven with Hawaiian customs; sprin-
kled with the names of kings, princes,
chiefs and chiefesses. was settled,
probably forever, by the supreme
court OF the United States yesterday.
BY the decision, news Of which has
been received in. private cablegram.
Levers e. Cooke win possession OF
property at Queen and Punchbowl
streets valued at sac, 900 or more, and
Mrs. Mary Atcherley, wife of the DIR.
Atcherley who figured in a somewhat
spectacular career here, loses her four
teen-year fight for the land.
or equal interest with the historic
features OF the case is the fact that
the supreme court of the United
States HIS virtually reversed itself
upon the showing made from the SUI
preme court Of Hawaii and by Attor-
ney ID. Ii. Wilmington, who went to
Washington to argue the case. To
win reversal of a United States SUI
pIeme court opinion is victory for
clarity and force of argument not Of
ten obtained.
The .Atcherley. case, as it is gen
erally fnown. is one OF the most COM
plicated, both as to points of law and
custom involved and as to the maze
of legal documents growing ont OF
the long fight. in the history of the
local courts. 1t really began when Ka-
niH. high chiefess who died in 1S43
or 1874. gave to David Kalakaua, af-
terward king Of Hawaii the land at
xthef ia NOW aheeff aird Punch hb0wf
streets. Under the custom of those
early days. the boy David was an
adopted son of the chiefess Kaniu
Mrs. Atcheriey claimed title through
David Kalakana and in June. 1901,
began action against the Kapiolani
estate to recover possession OF the
land This started a long and keenly-
contested fight, as shown by the mass
OF legal documents on file at the su.
pre1ne court-eqlity bills. injunctions,
appeals, opinions, findings of fact and
81 other varieties Of formidable pa
pers.
Levers & Cooke became a party to
the legal fight because the Kapiolani
SctulC COnNCa GU tnO7 NaOutpdAg lttC
major portion of the land in dispute
In July, 1901, Mrs. Atcherley filed
suit for eieetment against the Kapio-
lani estate and at that time asked
$4,000 damages The property has
since increased considerably In value
On March 5, 1908. the supreme
court held that Lewersl & Cooke had no
title to the land, and again on March
"a. 1904. another phase of the matter
having been presented. final decree
was handed down, holding against
Levers C Cooke. the company there
upon appealing to the supreme court
of the United States In 1911 the U.
S. supreme court rendered a decision
affirming the decree of the Hawaiian
tribunal
The next important development in
the case was an allied matter in which
virtually the same issues and points
of law were involved. Mrs. Atcherley
was still fighting the Kapiolani es-
fste. The estate wanted an injunction
against an action at law and to de.
clare trust, Mrs. Atcherley about
Continued on page two)