The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1883-03-10

That on the cin by the Government oi tins sun
for the payment Of the debts OF decodent any
private lands not sold remain charged WIN P"y
ment Of thar rum and with all sums auNa"S
by the administrator. That II tins Is 80 tue ur
PENDANTS are in the position OF a mortgage
nossession tiI tie amount advanced shnll be inIiy TO
paid.
the moicty vested in her on the dc, 81 h61un-
ROYAL Consort. that no act of the Lsene no NeGF
devest her OF her private property aa 49,
tary assumption OF the debts OF nof
impose a lien on her estate.
pieces not being enumerated 49,
lands, and having been yestE&En
". by a different form Of ukssHe
by statutes relating 10 CTI-n
finally. that The plea OF estopI
lien could not be entertained IA
The court has above eNpress~ ia
the legal estate Of these pren& ar
heirs. 1t remains only 10 eons3 M
the cstoppel or lien. If the lei d
the plaintiff intended 10 maintaiA 49,
i Ka%@h pr vs. Fsh sIsy 81 = Ha%; IL EK
court adopts the principle that am
topIel may be set up in actions Of eje&ax
constitute a bar to the action. The -
then consider if the facts in this case sup
sstoppel or establish an equitable alien.
Tie preamble Of the Act Of Dec. 80. 1865 stAu
that by the existing law tho COnsorts of the kings o
Of Hawaii are entitled to dover in the Royal Do
main, as had been decided 10y the court. She had ~
therefore, a right to it. and the concluding clause
Of the preamble of e" whereas it is just and proper
that Queen Emma should bs enabled TO maintain
a style of living suitable TO her station and digni-
ty." is niconscquential. unless the permanent sot-
Element was completely disproportioned TO the
value Of the dover. which is not pretended. for II
il was her right il was secured 10 her on the Royal
Domain. and it was not for her benefit, but for that
Of the incumbent Of the throne, that the LegisiH-
ture voted to relieve the Crown estate OF the
charge by paying what wouid be taken by the
plaintiff as an equivalent. The Act contains tho
sole condition that she shall first rehnquish her
dover in the Royal Domain, and il cannot be con-
sidered that she was to r%elinquish any other
rights interest or estate.
The subsequent Act Of Jan. Sd, 1865. makes the
Royal Domain inalienable. places ii in the custody
Of three Commissioners and authorizes the Minis
ter Of Finance to issue Exchequer bonds to the
amount Of not more than $50, 600, which the Com
missioners, conformity with the Minister, may
negotiate for the redemption of the mortgages
which may remain unsatisfed, after the admins
traitor of His late Majesty's estate has exhausted
all the private estate which the administrators may
be legally entitled to use. The proposition Of the
defendants here, is that the administrator ought
to have sold these promises if they were private es-
tate. Let us see. The preamble Of the Act refers
only to the mortgages charged on the Royal Do
main. pursuant to the finding Of the court that
the Domain should pay wha. was charged upon 1t.
1t is admitted in proof that there was no mortgage
on these premises. and the administrator ac-
counts state that the S27,OOO, received from the
treasury was to relieve mortgages charged ON the
crown lands. From this il follows that the ad-
ministrator would not have been legally entitled to
sell such private estate Of the deccdent az IL hero
in question, for the payment OF such debts as were
met by the S27. 900 taken from the treasury ehd
that he should not have sold II before taking
funds from the Government.
But this sum of money was not at that time a
gift to the Royal Domain, much less, was IL a bene-
fit to the plaintiff. She had parted with her in
tercst therein, in consideration Of the annuity
from the Government. 1t does not appear that the
amount Of the permanent settlement had not been
made with reference to the value Of dover in the
estate as mortgaged, and in any case, this amount
had been agreed upon, with no condition OF any
other release than Of the dover herein. IL was yet
only n loan Of the Government credit. Section D
provides that one fourth part OF the annual reNe-
nue. of the Crown Lands shall he paid into the
Treasury to satisfy the interest and accumulate a
fund for the payment OF the bonds until the en-
tire sum authorized to be loaned should be paid"
citing in u lengthy preamble that His Majesty,
kamehameha ", had derived but small advantage
charges upon them, and in view, especially OF HIS
Majesty's generosity in consenting to the limlta-
ton of the Royal Domain, snacts that the Ha-
waiian nation assumes the payment OF the bonds
issued under the Act Of Jan. Sd, 1865.
1t 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 de-
ceated Sovereign, bound by equitable principle 10
surrender their private inheritance for this consid-
bent of the throne ? Or how can il he said that
this contribution of the Government TO the Crown
Domain forms a lien ON the inheritance which the
Commissioners have held possession Of, to be dis
charged before surrender Z To whom should this
lien be paid 3? II to the Commissioners, it is a gift
Of another S27. 600. And the Government does not
hold the promises and demand payment.
If we then dismiss the claim as untenable on
what may be called the facts Of the cause there
remains only the claim as based on the declarahon
in the testimony Of the administrator that he sold
ii m lands winch ne supposed 10 nave belonged
10 Kamehameha ~, in his private right and
would have sold these if ho had considered them
such. Little need be said upon this in view Of the
line of reasoning which the court has followed.
Upon estoppel grounds the administrator was
estopped from claiming that he injured the Crown
Lands by neglecting to sell this estate before sell
ing any part of the Crown Lands III 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 foTbOrne TO realize upon that
estate what he says he might have sold. He left IL
where the heirs Of the legal title might at any time
assert their claim, as now the plaintiff has.
The finding OF the cOnrt is for the plaintiff, pur-
suant to the description Of the premises in the
complaint. less the pieces disclaimed, Lot No. 10.
for the unsOld remainder Of the partition o. Ka-
mehameha ~. with costs.
w. II. Castle and F. M. Hatch for plaintiff the
Attorney General for defendants.
Honolulu, March Sd, 1888.