The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1882-11-29
Aawaiiatt GAZETTE.
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1881.
suPrsme Court of the Hawaiian Islands.
in Equity.
K. Jubey vs.. }. W. Puni ct al, before Mr..

Justice McCully.
OPINION OF THE CoURT.
The question to be determined is whelhe
there was partnership between the plainti
and defendant II respect to the crop Of ?
acres Of sugar cane at Koloa, Kauai, grow
for the Koloa Sugar Company's Mill, as il
claimed by The plaintiff, or whether the plain
tiff was a servant employed as the overseer o
the work, as claimed by the defendant
There is no written agreement Of partner.
ship.
Neither Of the partners is a business man.
The evidence as to their transactions will
each other is vague and, in important respects
conflicting.
I will endeavor to summarize the several
items Of testimony offered for the determine
ton Of the case and comment on their bearing
and effect
The transaction commenced July ISIS. The
plaintiff shows letter dated July 18th 1875
written by the defendant from Koloa, to him
in Honolulu, where he had gone for the pur-
Of shipping men for the enterprise This let
ter was imperfeotly rendered into English at
the trial. have given it some study since.
The writing is not always clear, and think
it is characterized by the imperfect, broken
native which some Hawaiians use in address,
| ing foreigners who, they suppose, are not well
acquainted with their language ] translate
it as follows:
KoLoA July 2gth 1875
To JUBEY, Japanese, Pelekane, Honolulu.
| Aloha between Us II have received your
letter speaking Of HIckield q Co.'S shipping
| (men) in the name Of j. W. Wright * Co. for
the Koloa Company. So let my name be writ
ten outside the shipping contract that they
are to labor with me for the time they con-
tract. I to refund the money formerly paid
on the land. ~ just as we formerly spoke
Of so in all respects shall it be. Don't forget
to give aloha to Umeke and Koko If you
want Roko to come back here let him come
! am rot angry with you as your letter indi-
Gates.
Jube, don't fail to look up shipped men. If
Tor when) you get five men, return and we
two will unite in raising cane-so | did with
Kiana, Chinaman; didn't trick him. divi-
ded equally the money with him. twas done
the same by John Hobbs. We know about
that His kanakas remained with him till his
death. Truly, Amen. With much aloha,
J. W Pun, KolOa
Defendants testimony concerning this letter
is that tie partnership which had been pro-
posed depended on plaintiffs furnishing cap
ital. lie no where shows how much capital
was required from plaintiff, and that as plain
tiff failed TO get capital the project Of partner
ship failed and plaintiff labored for defendant
Oh wages.
But plaintiff testifes that he did furnish
S25s, and it was with that money he " Is
Honolulu, paid his expenses and .i'h''';'ent to
Of such men as be 'I'Hl o''''s'' tne advances
contract of pr.,nd qs5t. He produces the labor
Nv ins-1lsie man shipped to himself
A.. rT-e Of fns fna
YcIy is that the parties had come to their |
agreement as to partnership and that the plain |
tiff came to Honolulu in pursuance Of the part |
nership. The plaintiff is definite in bis state |
ment Of the amount he furnished, the defendant |
does not say how much be required He makes |
a general denial Of plaintiffs contributing any |
thing. Besides it will be seen the partnership |
was based on the plaintiff contributing most
Of the personal labor and defendant most Of |
the cash, although this was done for the most
part by the Koloa Sugar Company as advances
on the crop.
In this visit to Honolulu the plaintiff broke
up building he owned he.e, and sent the
lumber tc<.au. were It was put into the
building which Npe Ihe residence Of plaintiff
and the labOreTs on this land while cultivatiDg
the crop, being bull for the purpose Of making
the crop.
The defendant admits ihis, but says that the
boards were Of but little value and that he
blamed the plaintiff for sending them at charge
for the freight But why should plaintiff have
sent them a9d defendant have put them into
this house, if they were not partners but en-
ployer and employee. The defendant testifes
that he bought new lumber, but the value Of
it was less than $50, and the whole house was
Of but little value, and plaintiff contributed a
portion at least towards it.
Considering these two acts in connection ,
with the visit 10 Honolulu as proving a part
nersbip formed acts done in pursuance thereof, ]
when did the parties agree that the partner
ship ceased and another relation commenced? ]
Several witnesses testify to hearing and ,
.aking part in conversations with the parties I
wherein they agreed to become partners. !
gainst these the defendant produces Witnesses
who testify to hearing an agreement for labor 6
Vt SIS per month and found. '
! give quite as much credit TO the former as
he latter, but determine the case upon the | q
Icts and circumstances.
A book Of accounts is produced.
II is evidently the property Of the plaintiff q
or the first part Of it is filed with Japanese :
writing. The accounts relating to this bust
Tess were kept in rude way, by defendant.
Why does plaintiff furnish the book for the
defendant if be were defendants hired MANI
The accounts are the reckoning with the la
orers, beginning at page Ij6, (as I have
estorcd the paging where the corners have
cen cut out by the Japanese plaintiff to suit
is purpose Of marginal reference.) In the
Of defendant the heading is Z
Buki Hoohui ma Ia hama (a) kanaEa (o) J. I
Y. Punt "a me) Kupe Jap.
This is in broken native, as the letter IVES
translate it thus, Partnership box, Of the
rorking days Of laborers Of J. w Puni and
upe Japanese"
The first entry on this pages Oct. 9Th 1878
nd the last is April 9th 1878
The accounts Of differentIaborurs each on | +
age, are continued, in nc handwriting of
eiendant, with the caption Of the two names
uni and lube to page l73 except pages 10
nd III.
Beyond p. ia the pages are headed by Pu-
y name alone The first entry being dated l.
.b'y 9Th 1880. Some entries under Puni and
lbe are to December 1879 See page lT3.
On page l73 there is some account, Of fig II
es and dates, but without explanation, with .
ibc's name at the top, but without an upper
ption as all the laborer's have.
This may be an account Of money drawn by
aintiff. The dates, the 9Th Of the month
rrespond with the dates in the other accounts
pm which it appears that they drew money
d paid hands on the fifth Of every month";
lese amounts arc small, not the wages Of SIS
7 month. III
The defendant charges, in testimony, that "
o plaintiff borrowed the book and cut out
0 leaves containing his own account. There
c leaves cut ont between p. $50 and p. 337,
at is in the back part Of the book, and very
separated from the neighborhood where
e other accounts Of these parties are kept.
lie plaintiff denies cutting them, and says
at they were cut out by the defendant to Oh T
N blank paper.
adopt The latter view. | do not think it
obable that the plaintiff would cut out his
,ount, for by any showing he has not drawn VI
lat you'd be his share in the partnership.
The bSok therefore, in my view, strongly
pports the theory Of partnership
.AL1NGs WITH TIE KoLoA SUGAR Con-
rANY.
Mr.. Wright the Manager and President Of
Koloa Sugar Plantation and Company, and
:. Kahlbaum, the book-keeper and cashier
their dealings only with the defendant II
ey knew that the plaintiff was the iaHd the
rlling manager. He brought the pay-lists
ting The amount Of wages, and the money
uired. Wright and Kahlbaum would pay
hing without Puni's order This merely
,ws their knowledge OF want Of knowledge
the business relation which might subsist
ween Puni and Jubey, but it does not mega
9 the fact Of partnership 1t is consistent
h all the circumstances Of this case that
y should know Punt as the responsible man z,
his case, and know little Of Jubey. -
uni, was in their employment an old
dent Of Koloa, standing very high in cs-
alton, as Mr.. Wright testihes. Jubey, a
lanese, speaking bat little Hawaiian and
English, and new conner In the ar =,
cement, between them Puni undertook the