
    PUNEFUOLEMOTU M. TUAOLO, Appellant, v. MANAIA E. T. VAIVAO FRUEAN, Appellee. SAELUA FAATE’A, Appellant, v. MANAIA E. T. VAIVAO FRUEAN, Appellee.
    High Court of American Samoa Appellate Division
    AP No. 06-95
    AP No. 07-95
    July 8, 1997
    Before: KRUSE, Chief Justice, GOODWIN, Acting Associate Justice, WALLACE, Acting Associate Justice, and SAGAPOLUTELE, Associate Judge.
    Counsel: For Appellant, Punefuolemotu M. Tuaolo, Tautai A.F Faalevao
    For Appellant Saelua Faate'a, Albert Mailo
    For Appellee, Afoa L. Su esu'e Lutu
    
      
       Honorable Alfred T. Goodwin, Senior Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, serving by designation of the Secretary of the Interior
    
    
      
       Honorable J. Clifford Wallace, Senior Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, serving by designation of the Secretary of the Interior.
    
   ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING

Introduction

This controversy began when appellant Punefuolemotu M. Tuaolo ("Punefu") filed a claim to the matai title "Tuaolo" of the village of Pago Pago. • Ip. response,/to ,- Ppnefu's, action,appellant ,Saelua: Faate'a ("Tutuvanu") and appellee Manaia E.T. Vaivao Fruean ("Vaivao") filed counterclaims. After, a trial on-the; iperits,the trial- court awarded the title to Vaivao. Punefu and Tutuvanu,, appealed the trial court's decision, alleging (1) that the trial court's decision was clearly erroneous, and (2) that an appearance of partiality among the sitting associate judges impermissibly tainted the trial court's proceedings.

On June 16, 1997, this court issued an -opinion and order that rejected appellants' contentions and affirmed the decision of the trial court. On Jime.27., 1997, Punefu.filed a petition for ,rehearing. , . : .

Discussion

"A rehearing is not a matter of right, but is a privilege granted at the discretion of the appellate court," Fanene v. Fanene, 30 A.S.R. 2d 115, 116 (1996). The decision of an appellate court will stand unless the .petitioner cap present an argument demonstrating, that tfte appellate court "overlooked-or misapprehended" particular, "points of law or fact:" A.C.R. 40. .

Ip.the instapt-case, Punefp's petition;for rehearing primarily rehashes the sanie sarguments, that¡ he. presented an the initial appeal-arguments, that we concluded were ,unpersuasive.,. See Toleafoa v. American Samoa Gov't, 26 A.S.R.2d 71, 72 (App. Div. 1994); see also Soli Corp. v. Amerika Samoa Bank, 25 A.S.R.2d 94, 95 (App. Div. 1993). We find nothing in the petition-for rehearing-that exposes "demonstrable mistake" in our June 16, 1997, Opinion and Order. Toleafoa at 72. ■ , . ;

Accordingly, the petition fpr rehearing is p.ENIED.,

It is so Ordered,  