The Hawaiian gazette., 1869-08-25
Supreme Court of Hawaiian
Islands.
July Term, A. ID. 1869.

July Term, 4. ID. 1863.
CHARLES BREWER, VS.. H. L. CHAsE-Action
to recover certain lot of land, situated in
Honolulu:
At the trial, the Plaintiff showed title, by
Royal Patent, TO the land in question; he
also put in a lease, reading as follows:
"The said parties of the first part, for them
selves, their principals, heirs, executors and
assigns, upon the conditions hereinafter ex-
pressed, do hereby lease unto the said party
of the second part, his heirs and executors,
q certain lot of land situated on Fort Street,
| (described), which lot, the party of the sec
ond part, his heirs or executors, are to pos
sess and enjoy without molestation, for the
term of two years from the first day OF oc-
tober, A. D. 1865: provided, he or his said
representatives shall comply with the follow
| ing engagements, on his part, viz: The said
! party of the second part, his heirs or execu-
tors, are to pay to the said parties of the
| first part, their heirs, executors, administra-
tors or assigns, yearly rent of three humid
red and sixty dollars, in quarterly payments,
for each and every year during the term of
this Lease and ii is further understood, that
at the termination of the aforesaid term of
1865, il is to be at the option of the said party
of the second part to continue to occupy the
said premises for a further term of three
years, at the same rate of rental, provided,
however, that if at any time at the ex-
piration of tile aforementioned term OF
two years, the parties of the first part
should wish to sell the premises, then
this lease is to be null and void, and the party
of the second part to be allowed the privi-
lege of removing all improvements made by
him, and the parties of the first part agree
to give the party of the second part two
months notice of such intention to sell
said premises. Should the party of the sec
ond part at the expiration of the said term
of two years wish TO cancel this lease, he is |
to have the privilege of removingall improve !
ments made by him. 1t is furthermore I'M
derstood, that the party of the second part |
shall not sublet or transfer any of the |
HiANAANSNS VI NAllo lucll " OluCI
party.
"And it is further understood by the parties /
hereto, that if any rents be due and unpaid,
or if default shall be made in any of the COW
enants herein contained, then it shall be law
full for the said parties of the first part or their
representatives, to re-enter said premises and
to remove all persons therefrom, and the
said party of the second part doth covenant
to pay TO the said parties of the first part or
their representatives, the yearly rent as be-
fore specified, in quarter-yearly payments,
and at the expiration of the said term he
will quit and surrender up the premises here
by demised, in as good state and condition
as reasonable wear thereof will permit. And
the said parties of the first part do covenant
that the said party of the second part, on
paying the said rent and performing the COW
enants aforesaid, may peaceably and quietly
hold and enjoy the said demised premises
and privileges"
The following evidence was addueed by
the Plaintiff:
J. B. Peterson, of the firm of c. Brewer &
Co., identifies lease and signatures, and de-
scribes the land claimed: says Defendant is
now in possession of land.
81 don't know, of my own knowledge, of
notice to Chase TO quit So far as | know,
Chase is not now recognized as tenant, or
we should have collected rent; Mr.. Carter
and John Brewer are C. Brewers Attorneys"
Cross examined: "Chase has rendered us
money within the last nine months, probably
the amount he considered the quarterly rent;
it was the same as before paid, ninety dollars,
the former quarterly rent. He has rendered
ninety dollars three times since September
Both, 1868; the tenders were refused"
John D. Brewer, one of the Plaintiffs At
torney's testified:
81 don't recognise Defendant as our ten
ant, nor does Mr.. Carter, who is out of the
Kingdom; we refused rent because the terms
Of the lease were violated" CThe Defendants
Counsel objected to this evidence, on the
ground that the complaint did not aver
forfeiture of lease, but it was admitted, de
bene)
Dr. John McGrew:
81 occupied two rooms as Doctors Office
In Chase's building. not exclusively; Chase
them with me; his customers sit in
there, and have the use of them whenever
require them; Chase gives me the right to
occupy them privately whenever l wish.
There is no written agreement between us:
went in there about last December, under an
that occupy, and receive my
patients there. Chase was opening drug 4
store there, and said he could not occupy it ex-
.lusively; told him would give him my
business, and have done so ever since; pay I
10 rent; my business is of considerable value 7
70 druggist. OBJECTED to, but admitted de
'ene) l feel bound, in good faith, to have
lrugs put up by Chase when he has them. t
After went in, Carter talked with me and 2
Chase; Carter was here when the action was
brought Further evidence of this CONVEX
iation objected to, but admitted as before-) {
Carter and Chase bad some dispute about the r
light to admit me into the building, but !,
ried to avoid hearing it; there were two
between them, / suppose with G
he same result, but avoided hearing" II