The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1884-02-06
The PrinoeviIle Plantation Case.

The case of Chulan Co. VS.. Princevile Planta-
tiun. just decided by the full Court, was this:
March lst 1880, an agreement was signed by both
parties, by which the plantation agreed TO rent to
Chulan & Go. certain lands at Hanalei for the pur
pose of cultivating rice" Both parties agreed 'to
sign, seal and execute a lease in duplicate TO be
hereafter prepared upon the terms and conditions
named in the agreement, viz: "Tbe plantation to
lease from 800 TO 200 of land to be used only
IN the cultivation of rice, and put Chulan Il Co. in
possession of all lands 800 acres as soon as
the manager elects to do so, the 800 acres to be
taken possession of Immediately for five years
with privilege Of extension for five years more at
a yearly rent of SO an acre. No land at HanAlei
TO be leased 70 any one else for rice culture with
out Chulan Co.'s consent, the latter TO have dead
wood for fences, etc. The plantation ito furnish
all the water necessary for the cultivation Of said
land with rice" also pasturage for CATTLE and two
acres out of every 100 rent free for houses Chulan
Co. not TO sublet or assign, nor interfere with
plantation labor Rent paid up to April LIST,
1882, on S63 $500 acres. Al that date Chulan Il
Co. had procured a survey of the land planted by
them. showing il 10 be 30S.06 acres and declined
70 paw rent for more. The plantation then brought
proceedings TO eject them for yment of rent.
They hereupon brought their Bill III Equity against
the plantation, asking for an injunction against
the ejectment, for decree that s, 445.72 be re-
funded to them as overpald rent, and that the
plantation be ordered to execute the agreed lease,
for 30303 acres.) The answer set up that the de
PENDANTS had placed the plaintiffs IN possession OF
Judge McCully in January, 1883, who gave decree
in favor Of the plaintiffs, holding that Chulan d
Co. were chargeable with only the land shown by
their survey 10 be under cultivation, also that the
plantation was bound TO furnish water for the
land.
Upon the appeal, the defendant was allowed TO
present further evidence as TO the nature of the
land, and the full Court held that the plaintiffs
were chargeable with all the land which the plant
alton had placed at their disposal, less few acres
MS too svampy for rice; also that the agreement
did not require water 10 be brought upon the
land: that the written agreement amounted to a
lease, and that, as commended by the defendant
counsel, the fact that Chulan d Co. had not
asked that water be conducted upon the land
showed that they did not construe the agreement
10 require that to be done. The grounds taken by
che plaintiffs counsel, that the agreement for all
over 500 acres was not binding upon the plaintiffs
as they did not agree TO take 1t, and that clause
TO deliver possession ''as soon as the manager
elects was void for vaguenessi and that until a
lease should be made as agreed, they were liable
only for use and occupation, also thai they had the
option to Determine what was suitable rice land
were not sustained BY the fnli Court; but ths de
PENDANT was ordered to execute lease.