The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1882-11-29
,,rtner,bin berore Wrirbt and KabIbuum which

partnership before Wright and Kahlbaum which
they could settle
do not think that by not appearing at the
hour set by the plantation FOR settlements
Jubey discldined or rdired partnership.
-Four Of the lists for monthly wages are
exhibited, in which Jubey puts himself down
for $50, SIS, SIS, and $50, and pr. of shoes
S6-s36
1t is argued from these and from the fact in
testimony, that, Puni mad his wages Of $50
per month credited on the account Of advance
on this caneheld, that Jubey was paid
manager Of Puni's field. Not conclusiyely,
and against the evidence we have been con-
sidering. One partner may need to draw
more for current private expenses, than
another who may have other resources. In
my view Puni was the chief capitalist, as
Jubey was the working manager Of the part
nership. Juicy mar have secured SIS per
month certain for his labor, if the speculation
should not afford him any more. Differences
in their private drafts can he adjusted in the
settlement of partnership accounts.
When the first crop was off defendant paid
plaintiff $3.50. He says it was gift. lie also
says that in the engagement with plaintiff at
SIS and food per month, he told him that if he
wanted $50 per month be would give it to
him, but that he continued at SIS per month.
Now it may be that defendant made
present Of $3.50 (Mr. Kahlbaum SAYS he asked
for an order for $3.50 for that purpose) TO the
plaintiff. And it may be that plaintiff labOred
at monthly stipend Of SIS, when he could
have had $40 by asking for it, and labored so
zealously that it was remarked upon by Wright
and kahlbaum, but my inference is that he
drew the lesser sum that he might have more
e.. g. II. IL Al l.
PENDANT made him the present" of $50 in |
hopes he might accept it as his share of the |
proceeds. The earnest assurance in the letter |
above cited, that he had been fair in some |
former enterprise Of this kind and had not |
cheated his partner, and the effort to remove |
some anger on the part Of the plaintiff gives |
me an impression that Puni felt that Jubey /
had some reason to be suspicious of his fair |
dealing. There are indications in this case Of
ieceitful dealing. Puni is the more intelli-
gent and experienced man. Jubey at some
disadvantages of Ignorance Of language and
have little to say about the dealings with
he rattoon crop. Jubey labored on it for six
months. 1t did not need irrigating. 1t grew
Tery well, Mr.. Wright says it has brought
more than he expected. 1t does not appear
hat Jubey neglected his business, but be NAV
lave had reason to distrust his partner, |
hat time that he looked out for sonnet by
Use to do. He does not abandon his ella anins
proceeds, and now comes into Court whln 70
inds that Puni has hypothicated them. en- ne
If he is found to be partner for thu
ane it follows that he is partner for plant
Don crop on which he labored. 'he rat
Thus find partnership and il is Il.
hat both parties hereto make their ordered
etOre d. h. Fyfe Esq, Deputy accounts
eference 10 the Court for r'toIerh, WIN
nal decree, the Injunctio--. 'Nonnriiisuon anu
ending such proceedir 'S'n 10 remain I'D ioree
+ NJ Hatch + foAEs.
efenda,. NIT! me fiGr plaintiff W. o. Smith for
..
Appeal noted.
Honolulu, Nov. 9Th, 1882