The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1883-03-28

neglected b rcgferD IL lelenlien e exoc1tl1g
a ecnyeye.cc. ard sod tAe estale b IL late
James Mako visAcas u0ti0e q any rskAes, e.
PectasSsns @ eqsisSes e Ne Plaiat8 sltAcegh
shs ass;saaeus e he moreyass ca tAs ksll-
aiass skceia have sasgestsa + L uss1s ccs-
curreotiy vs,A The ssls. Whea Cspt Jsnss
Makes asieesscn : called b he Pesiiiea cf
the plaistla sad ke = iasorne3 tkat "a sx-
ehsnSe had eeeS considered s=3 rreaisea b.
Mr., Niaenaua, b SAYS BE win Sc wAas IS
prcpcses ,e be siven kia n he sxeAange An
the testimony Is 70 he elSSct that csps- Make
we1i2 Res ecnssas % sASp TIE cne rfecs, AlanA
tAee u he pcsisica Ct nakirs new ccasrack
II they ccri4 es.,e tc az-eer.css "A he piaiu-
II recognized this b. aeeee,iioS b neE tsFus.
Gag, Make vas nos liahis for TIE speeise PER
6r-enee cf tie ergsgeraenes ef his ssansor to
sci any part cs tie yTaaesa essats Il which he
had ac pgeviees nosios. and which i aay sae-
sists2 were eral. ssithez vas he estcPped fre@
seticn os eieetnsat. b. arythSsS he had sui
isrrsa piaintiT to de- fS, plAistiH had ecne
ncthi1g ca he tzith e any pyenise e Capt
Make. and held = him 70 better pesSsios shan
Ct tcnlrs n. vii, y be had AZ hrSt setsred,
however the ccrVerSa,icns with Mr.. fsllaas
ard Mr.. WS5euanc nay have encouraged hin
to exter3 Ms improvements daring rsariy ten
years occupancy,
Has then the Status q Tie parties bssn
chasged sisce he pGrvhase by Cspt Makess
Tiers : tss.irsony hat a. eSeAarSs was
ecnsissrs3- 4 survey was made a, The inssanes
Of Csp, Make q plaintiff loss and Of the
rla1,asicn piece. and delivered 70 Mr.. Make.
These surveys ars not % Be found ROW. Ny
infsreace frcei What Is testified Is that The
lands surveyed IS the plaintiffs ioeln3ei al
- L aan..
plantation lcs cane - 3-igo acres -crs thar
bad tesa raie BY the survey uls9e whsH ths
szrhacgs was previously diseased. Ne wEit-
ing q renc-anGzm as rse1i7e5 BY tie statute
q frauds Vas z1ae. The plaintiffs counsel,
although the hin prsyS fer dscrse fer specific
rsCf,ruanee. in arsrseEt tcss not Claim this.
The proposition Gould nee bs Eaintziaed, in
vies q rhe Statute Of frauds. The statute IS
ncs rcre rule Ct evidences, bUt linisaticr Of
jaGscal aEihcrisy - sdori = rscsSGy.s ia
rCguires hat eontracts for the sale & lands IN
crcsr 10 be enforced by Judicial proceedings,
shall be sabssaatilssd ey soDs writing"
6,zss rs Halbert t0s Mass. -. This doc
.riue IS uniform and sa,sled.
Il remains then to b ccosiisrSd ii there IS
al equitable esteppel es the defendants plea Of
the Salute Of Frauds.
Tbe estcPpel uass ispend on the clsin that
7lliuii1 was permitted 10 believe ths; the ex-
change Of lIsds bad been asreed to and that IN
Consequence thereof he proceeded, with the
Sucwisd - q defendant 70 incur large expense
10 Improvements which be wocld net h4ve
uads % the husis Of his fsrrier tenure. and
which Theoretically, be canDot save il he leases
The premises
PrOef CT exchange cannot rsst On any pos-
session alleged u have been taken By the
defendant Of bis szzo patches. Fer first, il is
&C. made clear that dsfscil1l ever entered
into possession Of all the pieces which were
6naily dsmsndei in case the exchange should
&c inside, the coc1plai1ants Ses Of nlortsasinE
.Ec lands tending 10 show his claim ct posses
sion Is we'll As sills, and the testimony Of Mr..
P. \. AaSse being positive TIA; he ordered
sh1E 10 possession should &c taken O. hsld Of
the Pila patches They appear 70 have been
situated IN ! corseriss CT iaro patches belong
i1S % WGihse Plantation and il seems proba-
bis thas Apa13 which had been cfered to
Tlllaus ard Widen4sz had been cropped %
plantation account Mr.. MSSee also tessiies
that the plaintiff had possession hsi taken
crops End bad placed house on APaHa l.
This sttisuis Ct the parties towards these
lcss. the defendants rslirquishmsns and IT.
fnSal % take possession. and the plaintiffs
occupation Of then, strongly advised the
rllinLtf tia. the defendants Eeru holding OF
fruu the exchange which BE desired. What
reason bad he 70 conclude that the exchange
had been definitely agreed 70 His own ,esti-
rony sUss culy to the efsct Of his asking Mr..
Mlkse % have deeds prepared and executed,
and CT his being PCT OF to futurs time. He
does net testify that Il any tine they cane to
definite agreement that they would exchange,
ard tElt the 1rsls CT both parts had been
is6nsd and ssTesd "a and deeds promised.
Nr. A1kse's testimony Is that the imprss-
sion he derived frum Mr. Wiisniauu's CONVEX
s1ri11 WIS advice % give no deeds, 10 continue
in the former Stains. He Is DO. asked, bat he
does u0s say that be ever intended or promised
u convey to Naule- he says that he de-
uiAnded IN exhibition Of plaintiffs title, bat il
was never shown him, and never made salts
fIct1ry- But be says, this Vas not q the only
hitch - IN the business HIS fsthsr had d.
nan'isd IS ! part CT the exchange 4 little
cc1nsctins piece q LAID not belonging to the
plaiatii, and the plaintiff had not procured
and -snisrsd II
Meantime the plaintiff lad len the employ
usaE CT the plantation aRi the indccensns for
originally placing him IN the immediate vicin-
ity Of The pll1satiou Eozzs had ceased. And
istsudlnts held I Chlttel mortgage on bis
hoEsss
Vow to support II equitable sstoPpel CO the
ground that Be had msie large additional in
prgvens1ts On N c7al agreement Tor the pur-
chase of the land. Il MIST Dc clear that Oh
thsrs vas che agrssDsut - that the improve
Esuts we're made in pzrI14ncs thereof. Boz
II yisE q al the testimony / esznot find that
there vas Al agreement, CT that the plaintiff
lad reason - believe there Ess oas. The in
prCvsusnz vera N enlargement and repairs
q his dwelling AID buildings 1s placed then
II
EdS II he duty CT Mr.. M.kse 10 ssy % plaiut-
Il he Eas e1peniiuS TOO uueh money CT
rendering his b1ildiEzs zoo large % be moved
CT, Certainly If Nr. Makss had made DO
agreement 70 sell il Vas ucs for hin 10 deter
mins how much the tsnazs At viii shoali e.
pend Or N what shape he should put his
hgiidizgs- The plaintiff having ksd pTsyioas
possession IS i tenant his cuotinazuce cannot
&c taken ss : part Perforla1cs Of agreement,
ard II this case, a the orig1al license to
sutsT vas coupled with license 70 build and
take away MS buildings, Al enlargement Of
his buildings canzot be hsld PEI = IS part
performance % : rev agreement Is Is
necessary that the Act should ursquivocally
refer 70 and result iron the agreement, and
BE sch that the party wogld sgt5sr Al iujzry
aH1gGatiHg to fraud BY the refusal to executs
that agreement" S1gien Vsod and Pur-
chzzss / Itl
The case presented b. he plaintiff not Of
fsring written msnorz1dgn a sale and no.
supporting an oral 8gTseosus ard part per-
s1ru1ucs s1Ecie1t 70 estoP tie plea Of the
Salute q frz1iss the bill must y dismissed
With custs-
4. 5. HartEeIl for pIzintiE. IN. Hatch
for dsfs1fzucs
H1uoIuI1, February Isth, Iss5.
Upsu ,hs Lesr;sz m Re-, Is.5nx,.lsu..