Book Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1902 edition. Excerpt: ...of the Organic Act thereon. The agreed facts state that the "said Honolulu Rapid Transit and Land Company is the lawful holder of a franchise," etc. For the purposes of this submission and as between the parties hereto, we assume this statement to be true, 'and also that the Rapid Transit and Land Company had the power to acquire the right claimed in the manner provided in the statute and set forth in the agreed facts. It follows that the judgment of the court is, that question number one should be answered in the negative and that number two-should be answered in the negative with the qualification expressed in the opinion, and that question number three should be answered in the aflirmative; and that this judgment is given without prejudice to any right the public may have in said street adverse to the parties to the submission or either of them. And it is so ordered. Kinney, Ballou (E M c0lana-han for Rapid Transit Company. Holmes ct Stanley and P. N emnann for Hawaiian Tramways Company. LUM AH LEE, LUM YUEN SING, LUM AH SAM, LUM YET, LUM KUM, LUTM LOY, TONG KIT, WAI SUNG, MAN LUM, and LUM SING, doing business as copartners under the firm name of SEE YICK VVAI COMPANY-v. AH SOONG, TING SING, WONG GONG and FONG YUEK. APPEAL FROM Cmovrr JUDGE, Fnzsr CIRCUIT. SUBMITTED JANUARY 8, 1901. DECIDED APRIL 26, 1901. FREAR, C.J., GALBRAITH AND PERRY, JJ. In a suit in equity brought to restrain respondents from interfering with' water rights alleged to be appurtenant to certain land of the complainants, held, that the burden is upon tihe complainants to establish by a preponderance of the evidence the rights claimed by them and that in this case such burden has not been successfully borne a-nd that the evidence is too conflicting, ...