In re Boundaries of Kapahulu

• Decision Date: 14 January 1884
• Citation: 5 Haw. 94
• Parties: IN RE BOUNDARIES OF KAPAHULU.
• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

5 Haw. 94

IN RE BOUNDARIES OF KAPAHULU.

Supreme Court of Kingdom of Hawai'i.

January 14, 1884

SPECIAL TERM, DECEMBER, 1883.

APPEAL FROM COMMISSIONER OF BOUNDARIES.

Syllabus by the Court

The evidence being very conflicting, and nearly evenly balanced the Court affirms the decision of the Commissioner appealed from.

Ex parte surveys, not followed by adverse possession, have little force as evidence of boundaries.

S. B Dole and W. O. Smith, for plaintiff.

F. M Hatch, for defendant.

JUDD C. J., MCCULLY and AUSTIN, JJ.

OPINION

AUSTIN J.

This case is here on appeal from a judgment rendered by the Boundary Commissioner of Oahu in the matter of the settlement of the boundaries of the Iliaina of Kapahulu. The owners of the adjoining lands of Waialae-nui and Waialae-iki claim that the judgment includes about 1, 000 acres of land which properly belong to Waialae-nui.

The territory in dispute is a barren tract lying to the eastward of Diamond Head.

The boundaries of Kapahulu were declared by Boundary Commissioner W. P. Kamakau, by his judgment rendered December 23, 1872, to be nearly as now settled, but owing to certain legal defects in the fixing of the boundaries as to the land of Waialae-iki, the judgment was vacated by the decree of the Chancellor entered May 11, 1883, and a new proceeding was taken herein to again settle the boundaries of Kapahulu.

On carefully examining the evidence taken before the Boundary Commissioner, and the additional evidence taken before us, we are inclined to believe that the decision of the Boundary Commissioner is right. The evidence is very conflicting, and is nearly evenly balanced. The contestants present maps made by Wm. Webster, of Waialae-iki and Waialae-nui, bearing date June 7, 1851, and copy of description of Waialae-iki, dated April 26, 1856, which, if correct, show that the contestants are entitled to the land in dispute.

We think, however, that there is not sufficient evidence that they were known of, or that the boundary as fixed by them was assented to at any time by the owners of Kapahulu. Certain acts of occupation with his cattle in grazing by Mahuka, the tenant of the contestants' ancestors, were shown, but nothing which would amount to an adverse possession, nor was such possession claimed. It was shown that Mahuka was the lessee of Kapahulu also, and this would account for his use of it, and some evidence says that the owners of...