The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1883-03-07

the concluding order was ''that the Administrator
be discharged from further responsibility, the resi-
due IN his hands amounting to $5,SS6-S4 being or
aered TO be paid to the Commissioners of Crown
Lands OF whom the court is apprised the Admins
traitor is himself one. and is their business agent
The learned Counsel for the defendants submits
in argument that the heirs of kamehameha ~,
having had the advantage of the statute Of 1865
and no claim having been made against the pos
session OF these pieces by the Crown, are now es-
topped. That the $4,000 was gift to the Crown
lands by the nation aud it makes no difference to
them that it was not APARTMENT from Crown Lands
for the release OF membranes, whereby the re-
mainder of the estate was saved. That on the gift
by the Government of this sum for the payment
of the debts or decedent private lands not sold
remain charged with payment of that sum and
with all Sums advanced by the administrator.
That if this IS so the defendants are in the posi-
ton of mortgagce IN possession till the amount
advanced shall be fully paid.
For the plaintiff ii is commended that title as TO
the moety vested in her ON the death of her Royal
Consort, that no act of the Legislature can dvest
her of her private property and no voluntary as
sumption OF the debts of her husband can impose
lien on her estate. That these several pieces not
being enumerated and made Crown Lands, and
having been vested in kamehameha " by a diff
ferent form of title were not affected by statutes
relating to Crown Lands. And, finally, that the
plea of estoppel and of equitable lien could not
be entertained in u court of law.
The court has above expressed its finding that
the legal estate of these premises vested IN the
the estoppel or lien If the learned counsel for
the plaintiff intended to maintain the last propo-
sition expressed, they met by the authority of
kamohai vs. kahele, Sd Haw. X. so, where the
court adopts the principle that an equitable es-
TOPPED may be set up IN actions of electment and
constitute bar to the action. The court may
then consider if the facts in this support an
estoppel or establish ain equitable lien:
The preamble of the Act of Dec. 30. 1864. states
that by the existing law the ConSortS of the Kings
of Hawaii are entitled to dover IN the Royal Do
main, as had been decided by the Court. She had
therefore right TO 1t, and the concluding clause
OF the preamble of whereas il is Just and proper
that Queen Emma should be enabled TO maintain
style of living suitable to her station and digni
ty,s is nconseQuential, unless the permanent set
Element was completely dlSpropof toned to the
value of the dover which is not pretended, for if
it was her right it secured TO her on the Royal
Domain. and it was not for her benefit, but for
that of the incumbent of the throne. that the Leg
islature voted to relieve the Crown estate of the
charge by paying what would be taken by the
plaintiff as an equivalent. The Act contains the
sole condition that she shall first relinquish her
dover in the Royal Domain, and it cannot be con-
sdered that she was TO relinquish any other rights
interest or estate.
The subsequent Act of Jan. 81, 1865, makes the
Royal Domain inalienabe, places it III the custody
of three Commissioners and authorizes the Minis
ter of Finance TO issue Excheqer bonds to the
amount of not more than $4,000, which the Com
missionerS, Jointly with the Minister, may negoti
ate for the redemption of the mortgages which
may remain ullS1llSu6Q, NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
His late Maiesty's estate has exhausted all the
private estate which the administrator may be le
gally entitled to use. The proposition of the de-
PENDANTS here, is that the administrator ought to
have sold these premises if they private estate
Let US see. The preamble of the Act refers only
to mortgages charged on the Royal Domain, pur
suant to the finding of the Court that the Domain
should pay what was charged upon ii. 1t is adj
mItted IN proof that there mortgage on these
premises, and the administrators accounts state
that the $4,000 received from the treasury to
lieve mortgages charged on the crown lands. From
this 1t follows that the administrator would not
have been legally entitled to sell such private es-
tate of the decedent is here in question: for the
payment of such debts as were met by the $4,000
taken from the Treasury. and that lie should not
have sold them before taking funds from the Gov
eminent.
But this sum of money was not at that time
gift TO the Royal Domain. much less, was 1t ben
eft to the plaintiff. She had parted with her in
terest therein III consideration of the annuity from
the Government. 1t does not appear that the
amount of the permanent settlement had not been
made With reference tn the value of dover in the
estate as mortgaged, and in any case, this amoun:
had been agreed upon. with no condition of any
other release than of the dover herein, twas yet
only lean of the Government credit. Section 3
provides that one fourth part of the annual reve-
nue. of the Crown Lands shall be paid into the
Treasury to satisfy the interest and accumulate
fund for the payment of the bonds until the en-
tire sum authorized to be loaned should be paid"
In 1856, July 9th, was passed an Act which,
citing IN lengthy preamble that His Majesty,
kamehameha V, had derived but small advantage
from the Crown lands in consequence of the
charges upon them, and IN view. especially of His
Malestys generosity, In consenting to the lmita-
ton of the Royal Domain, enacts that the Hawaii
an nation assumes the payment of the bonds
issued under the Act of Jan. Sd, 1861
1t must be apparent that the effect of this Act,
as of the Act granting the annuity, was for the
benefit of the reigning Sovereign, who might then
enjoy the entire income of the Crown Estate. How
then the heirs of the private estate of the de-
ceased Sovereign, bound by equitable principle to
surrender this private inheritance for this consid-
Grafton moving solely for the benefit of the incum-
bent of the throne! Or how can it be said that
this contribution of the Government to the Crown
Domain forms lien OH the inheritance which the
Commissioners have held possession of, to be dis
lien be paidf If to the Commissioners it is gift
of another $4,000. And the Government does not
hold the premises 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
declaration in the testimony of the administrator
that he sold all the lands which he supposed to
have belonged 80 kamehameha ~, in his private
right and would have sold these if he had consid-
cred them such. Little need be said upon this in
view of the line of reasoning which the court has
followed. Upon estoppel grounds the administra-
tor was estopped from claiming that he injured the
Crown Lands by neglecting to sell this estate be-
fore selling any part of the Crown Lands (if he
did sell such1 or before going on the Government
credit, for he was also the Crown Land agent, and
as such must be held to have forborne to realize
lpon that estate which he 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 pur-
suant to the description of the premises in the
complaint, less the pieces disclaimed, Lot No. TO-
for the unsold remainder of the partition of Ka-
mehameha ": with costs.
W. Il. Castle and T. NJ Hatch for plaintiff: tho
Attorney General for defendants.
Honolulu, March Bird. 1883.