Waihona Aina

Kaluapuhi, Halekou, Waikalua, Keaahala, Kanoholuiwi Ili & Island of Moku Manu, Kaneohe Ahupuaa, Koolaupoko District, Island of Oahu, Boundary Commission, Oahu
Volume 2, pps 63-80

No. 72

In the Matter of the Boundaries of the Crown Ilis in Kaneohe, Koolaupoko, Island of Oahu, viz., “Kaluapuhi,” Halekou,” “Waikalua,” “Keaahala,” Kanoholuiwi,” and Island of Moku Manu

Petition

To: R.F. Bickerton, Esquire, Boundary Commissioner for the Island of Oahu

Dear Sir: I would hereby make application to you for a hearing for the purpose of defining the boundaries of the following Crown Ilis in Kaneohe, Koolaupoko, Oahu. Viz.: “Kaluapuhi,” Halekou,” “Waikalua,” “Keahala,” Kanoholuiwi,” and Island of Mokumanu, leles of “Waikalua,” I herewith enclose the notes of surveys of the above Ilis and at the time of hearing a map will be laid before you by the Government Survey, showing the positions of the various apanas..

The parties interested as far a[s] I can ascertain are the Harris Estate, Emma Kalelenalani and Mr. C.R. Bishop.
Hoping that you will give this matter your earliest attention.
I remain, Yours truly, Charles H. Judd, Crown Commissioner and Land Agent

[page 64]
Notice of time and place of hearing having been duly advertised as follows:
[left blank]

The Matter came on for hearing at my office, Merchant Street, Honolulu on the 21st day of March 1884

Present: M.D. Monsarrat, C.J. Lyons, Colonel C.H. Judd, A.J. Cartwright, Charles R. Bishop, F.M. Hatch for Harris Estate.

Mr. Bishop states that he makes no objection to the survey as by the Government map produced. Mr. Cartwright makes same statement and also states that he will be satisfied with Mr. Lyons' evidence in regard to Boundaries in question.

C.J. Lyons, sworn, states, this is the Government map of Kaneohe of a survey made by me; the notes of survey field with this application are made from my notes of survey. I compared them with Mr. Monsarrat. The boundaries of these Crown Ilis were made from information I got from Keawekuhia kane. I employed him by the day to go with me during the whole survey. He was acknowledged by all parties at Kaneohe to be the authority on boundaries. He was a man of about 75 years of age. He appeared to me to be perfectly competent in the matter of boundaries. I knew he was employed in the interest of other parties, when other surveys were made, complete copies were made of all surveys of Ilis and Grants and all Kuleanas above five acres. I also made use of such maps as Webster made. The Survey was a public one, and it was known what was going on. I was two or three months in the field. I have been informed that Keawekuhia is since dead. I got all possible information I could in regard to these boundaries.

The Islands of Mokumanu I understood from Keawekuhia were part of “Kuaaohe” which is a lele of Waikalua. They are surrounded by the sea.

Cross-examined by Mr. Hatch. There was another Kamaaina that I employed on the line between Mahinui and Crown lands. I don't know that I have his name. I found very little question as to where these lands were. I don't know that Keawekuhia had ever been in charge of Crown lands. I believe he had charge of the pond. This survey was made in 1875 and through 1876.

M.D. Monsarrat, sworn, states, I had made a copy of the notes of survey of Kaneohe Ilis, then I compared with Mr. Lyons, and his original notes, and notes filed with Application is an exact copy of these corrected notes.

[page 66]
April 7th 1884, Continued from 21st [? March], Kaneohe

Present: Messers Hatch, Monsarrat and Lyons.

Mr. Hatch offers in evidence copy Kuleana to Paele, No. 2628, and calls attention to its being bounded by konohiki and the sea. That Kuleana is said to be in Waikalua. Mr. Hatch claims that Konohiki named in description of the Kuleana is intended to be Konohiki of Ahupuaa which was Queen Kalama.

Mr. Lyons calls attention to the Kuleanas of Kawakawa [3430B] and Kaheleua [3429B] in Keaahala which is a Crown land and are described as being bounded by the Konohiki, also a Kuleana inside of an Award bounded by Konohiki; Kuleana of Holailai in Pahoa at Waianae, which shows the same, Volume 3 page 660 [name not located in Mahele; N.R, F.T. and N.T. records checked].

J.F. Brown, sworn, states, Where the word Konohiki is used in boundaries of a kuleana; it does not always mean the Konohiki of the Ahupuaa, it might apply to the owner of a subdivision. I have known it used where it referred to an award. In Kalihi where there are a number of owners any Kuleana is described as bounded by the konohiki. There is no Ahupuaa of Kalihi. The descriptions of the boundaries of Kuleanas, I think are often only the idea of the surveyors. [page 67]

All parties rest and the matter is submitted.

After examining the Kuleana referred to, and considering the evidence, I do not agree with Mr. Hatch, that where the word Konohiki is used is describing the boundary ofa Kuleana, that it always is intended to mean the Konohiki of the Ahupuaa. I therefore adjudge the boundaries in question to be, as set forth in the survey filed with the application in the Matter.
Dated May 1st 1884

No. 4

Cert ....