The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1862-09-25

stated in the decision to have been rs follows:
"Mr. Vincent testffes chat in ls4s he loaned the complainant
Of the Puuloa Salt works and the salt there manuflcturei. The
complainant went to California in ls4S, and on his return in
1913. he purchased the title of the estate, and he conveyed it 20
him to secure the original loan, and n further advance, making
to have one third Of the profits for his superintendence the com
plainant one third and the complainants wife one third and 1t
was distinctly understood, thato on the payment OF the $1,000 and
interest he was to re-conyey the estate He says further, We
made a settlement in 1858, and L received full payment Of COM
pIainants Indebtedness. and then desired q re-convey the e.
tate. / received one third Of the profits for managing the estate.
the complainant in my viii. Though, the estate worth four times
the amount he owed me. After my settlement with the CON-
half and l expressed a wish to complainant to re-convey the Is
tate to him, and the complainant replied soh. let it remain l
mentioned the same thing to him again and again, and his
answer was always the same l thought the estate had better
remain in my hands. as complainant was at that time intemper-
ate and sometimes his conduct was inprudent.' Witness says
he had rescued him from many troubles, that he felt the respon-
sioN"y i te trust ana desired get Oh u. however te
title remained in HIM till the arrival in this country Of the r.
sp"ndent, and Isaac then said to him after introducing his
~ To dSa, i i "I :" 80, rre gs re 80 go I N ne W., can Of m n' M pte ai ~
the sum in the deed at $4,000. He applied to Judge Harris,
and he drew The deed for the land and The mortgage and three
mortgage. L am under the impression, were made for the pur-
pose Of binding Mr.. Harris, the object being to put Mr.. Daniel
estate" 40 A19'' ""1 '"1 P'Of'l " '"''0 'O""e' -
The nominal ownership of the estate continu-
ed to vest in Mr.. Vincent as trustee, as above
stated, till June 1855, when Mr.. Daniel Mont
gomery arrived here from England, and the
estate was conveyed to him, to hold in the sam
manner as had been held by Mr.. v, Daniel
to have on final settlement one-third Of the pro-
fits of the estate as his pay, and Isaac two-thIrds,
the latter also to have an allowance of $1,000
per annum. Instead Of drawing that sum he
received about 5000 a year. The estate con-
tinued to be managed under this arrangement
till some time during the past year, when a dis
pute arose between the parties, and after some
efforts to compromise matters, the suit was
brought by Isaac to recover possession of his
property.
The counsel for the respondent or defendant,
Daniel Montgomery, endeavored to prove that
the estate was fraudulently conveyed to Mr.. Vim
cent and afterwards to Daniel Montgomery, and
that certain testimony was therefore inadmiss-
able; and a considerable portion of the decision
refers to this point. But the trust is shown by
authorities referred to, to be a ceStui gui trust,
and not fraudulent, and the evidence admitted.
Without noticing in detail the various points
of evidence given, we will insert the decision of
the Chief Justice, restoring the estate to Isaac
Montgomery
81 have examined this somewhat complcate case with great
and upon the best examination L am able to give the law
and evidence, my judgment is that the complainant is entitled
the Puuloa estate from the respondent. and that an account
should be taken Of his administration of the estate on the basis
eeipts of money for personal use for it is certainly very clear
mar ,e Of the estate e. Of the buildings erected snr t and d re t%e
improvements made, and there is no evidence that he made any
bound y ali that has I 5sen td one by his is trustee sea with within" the \ sole s
condition that the trust has in all these particulars been faith
AT present there must be an interlocutary degree that refer
to state an account of all the moneys received from
he he trust iEst. estate it by sr the here resP POI ut and also al moneys - ex sPa
this bill, am, particularly an account of all moneys received
lis services for the period aforesaid, with the usual powers Civ
2 n r to II Y the ero . q sdon o of aI boos to e snd nj e doSnm ma5ty AMID AMID
'onchers in the possession of either party, touching the subject
natter of tile trust estate"
The agreement between the parties in the suit
Gems to have been very loose and mostly verbal.
this the Chief Justice well says:
SIT is much to be regretted that the terms upon which this
usiness was to be carried on were not clearly defined. 1t be-
an in the generous feelings Of brotherhood, and was carried on
fithout regard to accountability and has terminated in a disa-
reenent- 1t should be a warning TO all in business relations.
med"
What has attracted to this case more than
Isual attention from the public is the occur
ance of an alleged attempt 20 bsbe the prin-
ipal witness. We stated before that the case
lung mainly on the testimony of Mr.. c. W.
1t was all-important to the success of
ither party that his testimony should be secured.
:. G. Harris, ESD, was the counsel for the
Complainant, Isaac Montgomery; and NIessrs.
- IL SN~S COAAhi anu AtODCi ~
'avis, E~squires, for Daniel Montgomery. The
tempt at subornation was alleged to have
cen made by Messrs. Davis and John Mont
emery, and the amount to be paid to Mr.. Vim
ent for false-swearing was 81 900. a portion
f the trial was occupied with the investigation
f this bribery charge, and a large portion of
ne Chief Justices decision is likewise devoted
} it. Each of the counsel for Daniel Mont
omery was examined, as was also Mr.. Vincent.
Ir. Bates testified as follows
I" Mr.. Bates. Counsel for respondent, testified that his client q
him that Mr.. john Montgomery, associate Counsel, l
al stated TO him THAI Mr.. Davis had said that Vincent had q
ale a proposition that for $1,000 his testimony should be I
yorahle to respondent, and at a meeting Of Counsel and client, I
e question was put to him whether he had made such a COM i
lnication, and whether Mr.. John Montgomery had proposed !
Mr.. Daniel Montgomery to deposit with Mr.. Davis, 81 1000, l
lih va to lie retained by him 10 abide the issue OF the suit, Z
the benefit of MIR. Vincent, to which Mr.. Davis replied, .
That is false" Solicitor Montgomery was excited at this d
ply because he had understood Mr. Davis differently. and Fl
in, " Robert | can't stand that' Mr.. Bates further testified
at Mr.. Solicitor Montgomery said TO Daniel, in his presence,
lt he had told him that he, the respondent, had given $500, aad I
at the respondent replied that is not true. L did 1t him !
We 500. lie came to me in distress, and / loaned, or gave. U
illness does not remember the word used,) him SlOO. Mr.. Y
I'm Montgomery re-asserted the statement as made by the '
;pondent, who stated further that MIR. Vincent had applied S
him for aid, and he had stated TO him that he did not know
W he was going to be situated, but IF I can L will help you.', q
e respondent said he had been advised to make this cummu- q
.ation to witness. in relation To the statements alleged to have =
IN made by Mr.. Davis about Vincent's testimony" il
In Mr.. Vincent's testimony was the following: Ii
The respondent lDanT Montgomery had made PROPOSE !.
ms to him Of subornation, at his own house, and shortly before L
arrival Of the SPeedDeX on her last trip. He statei that i
Lad made, and would give him $1,000 If he would favor his O
use. lie spoke TO him of the three $4,000 notes. He says he r.
ponient was impressing witnesses mind thus. He said TO d
n, Vincent. " You sold Puuloa and 1 gave You in payment 81