Saturday press. [volume] (Honolulu, H.I.) 1880-1885, 1883-03-17

custody Of three Commissioners and authorizes
the Minister OF Finance to issue Excheuer
bonds To the amount of not more than + 10,
COO, which the Commissioners, Jointly with
the Minister, may negotiate for the redemption
OF the mortgages which may remain unsatis.
fed, after the administrator OF His late Males.
TVS estate has exhausted all the private estate
which the administrator may be legally en-.
titled to use. The proposition Of the defend.
ants here, is that the administrator ought TO
have sold these premises II they were private
estate. Let US see. The preamble of the Act
refers only TO mortgages charged on the Royal
Domain, pursuant to the finding of the court,
that the Domain should pay what was charged
upon it. IL is admitted in proof that there was
no mortgage ON these premises, and the al.
mnistralors accounts state that the $4,000,
received from the treasury was to relieve mort
cages charged on the Crown Lands. From this
II follows that the administrator would not
have been legally entitled To sell such private
estate Of the decctent as is here in question,
for the payment of such debts as were met by
the Sa7, 600 taken from the Treasury. and that
he should not have sold il before taking funds
from the Government.
hut this sum ol money was not at that time
gift to the Royal Domain, much less was It q
benefit to the plaintiff. She had parted with
annuity from the Government. II does not
appear that the amount Of the permanent set
Element had not been made with reference TO
the value Of dover in the estate as morigagcd,
and in any case, this amount had been agreed
upon, with no condition OF any other release
than OF the dover herein. II was yet only
loan OF the Government credit. Section {
provides that one.fourth part Of the annual
revenue OF the Crown Lands shall he paid into
the treasury TO satisfy the interest and nccumu.
late fund for the payment of the bonds sun.
I'll the entire sum authorized to be loaned
should be paid
In 1866, July 9th, was passed an Act which,
rcciiing in lengthy preamble that Ills Majesty
kamchamcha V had derived but small all.
vantage from the Crown Lands inconsequencc
OF the charges upon them, and in view,
especially Of His Majcstys generosity, in con.
senting to the limitation Of the Royal Domain,
cnacts that the Hawaiian nation assumes the
payment Of the bonds issued under the Act Of
January 3, 1865.
II must be apparent that the effect Of this
Act. as Of the Act granting the annuity was
Tor the benefit OF the reigning sovereign, who
might then enjoy the entire income of the
Crown Estate. How then were the heirs Of
the private estate Of the deceased sovereign,
bound by equitable principle to surrender this
private inheritance for this consideration NOV.
ing solely for the benefit Of the incumbent of
the throne1 Or how can il be said that this
contribution Of the Government to the Crown
Domain forms lien on the inheritance which
the Commissioners have held possession of,
to be discharged before surrender To whom
should this lien be paid1 II to the Commits.
sioners, il is a gift Of another $4,000. And
the government does not hold the premises
and demand payment.
II we then dismiss the claim as untenabe
on what may be called the facts of the cause
there remains only the claim as based on the
declaration in the testimony Of the admins
traitor tina, he sold all the lands which he sup
posed TO have belonged 10 Kamehameha ~,
in his private right, and would have sold these
il he had considered them such. Little need
be said upon this in view of the line of reason
ing which the court has followed. Upon estop.'
pei grounds the administrator was cstopped
from claiming that he injured the Crown Lands
by neglectng to sell this estate before selling
any part of the Crown Lands (if he did sell
such) or before going on the Government credit,
for he was also the Crown Land agent, and as
such must be held to have iorborne to realize
upon that estate which be says he might have
sold. He left it where the heirs Of the legal
title might at any time assert their claim, as
now the plaintiff has.
The finding of the court is for the plaintiff
pursuant to the description of the premises in
complaint, less the pieces disclaimed; and of
Lot No. 10, for the unsod remainder Of the par.
tition Of Kamehameha ~; with costs.
w. K. Castle and f. NJ. Hatch for plaintiff;
the Attonery General for defendants.
Honolulu, March 3, 1883,