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

The case Of ChulaH q Go. Is. Priaesvilie Plz1ta-
iign. just decided By the fall Court, vas this:
Marrh ist, lsSo, an agreement vas signed BY both
parties. BY which the plantation 'Frod to rent to
Chulan Go. certain lands AZ Hanalsi fox the pup
puse q cultivatlnC rice. Both parties agreed 70
siCu. eeu and execute a lease n duplicate 20 b.
hereafter prepared upon the terms and cUndIts1us
named IN The agreement. VIZ The plantation %
ieaso from 30 70 7QO ACRES Of land 70 Be used only
The cultivation q nee and Pot CEullu 4 Co. II
Possession Of all lands over 80 acrus as soon as
the manager elects 70 do 50, the 20 ACRES to Be
taken possession Of Immediately for Eve years
vita privilege Of extension for I've years more. az
a yssrly rent q 80 an acre No land At HaIlale1
20 Be leased TO any else for rice culture WITH
cat Chulan & Cos consent, The latter % have dead
good for fences, etc The plantation ito furnish
al the water necessary for the cultivation q sid
ltnd uith Eicr- aiso pastz-ae fer cattle and two
ar-vs cot Of every 100 rent free fox houses. ChElal
4 Go. not 10 suhlct or assign. nor interfere with
riartatiuu libor. keut Was raid % 70 Auril Ist
isS9. % 81 5s-iQo ac-vs. Al that date Chzlan d
Co. had procured survey Of the land planted By
them. shovlns II % b s-S-os aeres, and dseiiHed
70 paw rent for rnurp- lba Plantation then druCghf
pruresiinls to eject them t1r nun-payueut OF rent
Thsy hersupon bruuGht thar Bil IL Equity against
the piAntatiur- ASKING for an injunction acalrzst
the ejectmert, FOX a decTue thai = - be re
funded 70 them as ovurpald ruzt- and that the
rlAntatnun b ordered - execute tie agreed lease
for SSl03 acres1 The answer set Up thai the de-
PENDANTS had placed TIE plaintiffs IN POSSESSION Of
siaA AGENE OF A-Al= e AlaaA4A-A - 49,
J1i-e McCully n Eanul-y. ISS5. Eho gave cec-ee
In fsrur Of the plaintiffs. holding that Chnlan d
CO. were chlrreable With only the land sh0zn By
their survey 70 be under cuitrvatun also hat the
Fiaufati1n vas buuli % furnish uater for the
had
Tpcn the appe.d- tlzs defendant vas allowed 70
present further evidence as % the nature II Tie
land. ard The fzn Cuurt held that thu plaintiffs
we're chArrebie With all The land uhich the plant
afi-i had riaced al their disposal les feE ac-ss
too suIuFy for ries- also that the agreement
did not require Tater 10 b bruC-ht Epun the
lad. thai the written agreement Amounted 10 a
Iease. and thai, as cnEte1ced By the defendzut's
sT.ausei tie fact thai Chllan a Co. had net
a<ked t1at water BE cu1dzczea uEruu tie lad
-hgspd thai they did u1t coEstrra the Agreement
=, reuvi-e tliaf 70 Be dc1e. The grounds taker bT
tl,- rlaiutifs counsel Ia. the Agreement fof all
ou-r 80 acres uas not binding zpoa the piaInLias
a thev did rot agr-e 70 take H. and that eia1ze
10 delfrsr ralzzsssinu --Es sou1 a. tLe l-a11cer
siecrE- vas V0id for rlC1a1ess; ard tat u--tll a
lease sh1uid Be made as 1-r5zi- tssV we're liable
OILY fer ~ ard qccuratf11, also ttt ieg had TIE
crticu 1, 1eea-aziae ualat Ves suz-aHie nee lErd
were not suztninad By III fnll Cezrt- but the DE-
fsndz-t vas crderea % ez1czte . lease