The Hawaiian gazette., 1883-05-16
Mr.. M. Roses Explanation on the ParIse
Land Case.

Enron GAZETTE In your issue of May 2nd, IN
making answer to an editorial in the .Idr8ii,sr,
you present such Peryersion of the facts and
draw my name into such adverse connection with
it, that feel called upon to state clearly the facts
IN the suit and my connection with il.
Ny relations with the deceased Rev. b. W. Par
ker were always Of the pleasantest and repeatedly
he has told that he sold the land in question 70
the I'm Of natives and that they still owed Sl0Oun
the land. Il seems remarkably strange that such
a well 4mOwn fact which the Rev. b. W. Parker
made no secret Of telling, should be hidden 10 the
family Of the deceased.
In answer 10 the statement that none Of the re-
cclpts for the 400 mentions agreement 10 sell,
l need Only say, that when the learned cOusel for
defense attempted such line Of argument, stating
that the receipts were for lease, the court reques
ted him 10 read the receipts and then 10 plead
something more tangible The learned counsel
for the defense then himself admitted. the
records will prove that the receipts show sale
only.
NV connection with the case was not a voluntary
oue-as your article would lead one 10 suppose
but wholly per force Of circumstances and
chiefly by the fault Of II. H. Parker himself. Short
ly after the death Of Rev. b. W. Parker IN 1874
mot IN l.io as your article enormously saesI the
natives rendered TO II. II. Parker the 500, the
remainder of the money due the sale. Mr..
Parker evidently intending TO attempt 10 lnyaidate
the sale made by his father not only refused 10
take the hundred dollars but offered refund that
previously paid to his father If the natives would
codc their claims TO him. The natives being poor
and knowing that they were unable to pay the
costs of going before the Court Of Equity resigned
themselves to Mr.. Parker's proposition and were
willing to give up the land II the 500 were TU-
turned. Whether Mr.. Parker's intentions were
good know not, but be kept putting the natives
of from time TO time with promises 10 pay and
thus brought about the conditions which led me IN
to the affairs. One Of the natives Joseph kamai,
sick with leprOsy, sOrely needing money one day
came 10 me asking for a loan of so strength OF
b. fact hat lao
from Mr. Parker. As Mr.. Parker happened to be
at my house ON that very day, ! asked him con
corning the claim Of kamai and he replied that il
was good and could safely give the money 70 him.
as he would see that / was paid when the claim
was settled. Later On Mr.. Parker never did pay
and therefore | was compelled to take hamal S
share IN the land as security. This was the way
was led through Mr. ParkCT's ASSURANCES INTO the
case Later ON lent my Lima Daniel Woodward, J
another of the claimants, money also and received
more interests in the Land as security.
In tins way ] accumulated the receipts above
referred TO and as an OutgrOwth of my attempts
to get the money the lawsuits followed and by the
rulings Of the court the natives compelled to
sue the claim. The proceedings in the court prove
all this.
What is particularly cxasperatipr TO the native,
Is that MI. Parker swOre IN court that he had no
knowledge of the sale, and that his father told
him IN ISL, that he had contracted for lease at
80 per annum. But how does Mr. ParkCr's oath I
compare with his actionsg Is il TO be supposed I
that man IN possession Of his faculties would /.
offer 10 refund 500 received in payment for q
lease ON the Land; the other hand, If a lease I
had been made for 50 per annum would the
natives be likely 10 pay IN the first two years,
from 1871 10 1875, 500 ON such lease.
Another point of evaporation for the natives Is
that Parker swOre that the occupancy Of the land
from the year ISL, ON by a house built by Maka- I.
hlo W., and costing sou, WAS simply perIuissiyg
one. No native would build bulky house not /.
tins one is, without his occupancy Of
the land was more than pernilsslyC.
Another misrepresentation Of your article Of May /.
ID is the statement of the great increase in value
that the land has undergone. That the land has .
increased in value no one denies though the IN
crease Is not nearly as much as you would make /.
it, yet this very increase in value gave rise To
ParkcEs dIsreputablo actions in the case and CX-
plains his dishonest intentions.
Knowing the fairness Of your paper feel no ]
doubt you will publish the facts as above repre-
sented, and by doing go, You will Ubligo very sin
cerely yours, NJ. HosE.
Kanoohc, May 9Th, lSs;'.
2. S.-Sinco the abuvo was written the astound- /.
ing revelation Of the Hon. Mr.. 5 N. Castle in
your last issue has come to my notice.
In his letter. Mr.. Castle displays such Ignorance
u the true facts in the that it Is hardly
rautable 10 take up any more Of your valuable
space 20 refutC him. suffice 1t TO say, that If he
c1nsuts the records in the court he will find that
the judges were fully justified IN finding a con-
tract Of sale, since none of the receipts referred 10
show lease, but declare the money was received
as part payment for me i1H8. .
Yours truly NJ EusE.
-----------------