The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1880-03-13

the poi used by the prisoners while at work at
the salt-pond was not taken from Moanalua, for
1t does not appear that there was at that time a
ripe crop at Moanalua nor is it shown that it
was the course Of business for one employing
prisoners to feed them but otherwise it does
appear that poi for the prisoners was delivered at
the prison and taken account of there. The de-
PENDANT bases his claim on q written tenure,
which declares that he is continued, . hoomau
aku,i' in the same privileges and position which
was lately held and enjoyed by KaleiIuhiole, and
ii is testified that the written instrument was
made at his request and given him as a certificate
of his authority, which had been questioned By
one of the tenants of the estate.
If the instrument had contained no other
phrase, it is not likely the defendant would have
claimed the exclusive estate Except the reserva-
tions) for life but following the above quoted
words, " hoomau aku, y is I" a mau loa," which
may be interpreted :" perpetually, 3" and following
is this sentence, " Aka hoi, ina make e aku kuu
kahu, o David Manaku, mamua GU, alaila e hoi
mai no ka alma o Moanalua ne a'u a me ko'u
mau hooilina, - which translated is, 50 But never
theless, if my kahu David Manaku shall die
before l do, then the land of Moanalua is to revert
to me and my heirs" But we have seen that no
life estate has been granted. The words used
are of appointment, and not of grant, and this
provision for reversion is therefore repugnant or
senseless. The strongest construction which could
be claimed for them is that they intend an ap-
pointment as an agent irrevocable. But an agent
is not the owner Of q life estate, without oblga-
ton to account for rents and profits.
1t is urged that the defendants predecessors
did not keep accounts nor render account. This
is an inference rot well supported by the evidence.
They appear to have paid on demand the cash
receipts of tie fishery and to have given up the
whole of the merchantable taro crops. and to have
made no preiension to even manage the salt crop,
so that if they kept no account it was not neces-
sary, because the landlord took everything. Such
would have been the dealing of an old-fashioned
Hawaiian chief, and by defendants admissions in
argument this plaintiff might take everything
under the denomination of" Auhau ku ka wa
only it would be unreasonable to do so,-that is,
in view of the tenant unreasonable, but perhaps
not so in the mind of the owner.
1t is to be observed that the times have
and the mode of doing business since the
death of Kaleiluhiole. The income of the land
then what might be produced by the labor of
kanakas or men living on it, who rendered
koele labor But the present manager has made
cash leases to foreigners cultIvating rice. The
receipts have risen to more than three thousand
dollars per year, which he claims for himself,
under his appointment. This is something OBJ
viously unreasonable, without consideration, and
not supported by the terms of the instrument.
Upon these views of the facts and the legal
aspect of the case, L come to the same conclusion
as that reached by the Chief Justice in the first
instance