The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1888-09-22

count IN any Court or Tribunal of the
! Kingdom"
! 1t cannot be assumed that the King
| could be party to any illegal TRANSACTION
| 1t is said that this money was intended
! to be offered and was offered to the hlng as
! a bribe." but in the eye of the law, the King
cannot be bribed, or accept bride, or be
| capable of committing a wrong.
| therefore hold that the matter set up In
! this part of the answer cannot be lnvestl-
| gated or considered by me, and on tull con
| SideratiOn [ am satisfied that ought not
| TO have allowed the allegation to remain on
| the record.
If however, it is proper for me to con-
slider this matter, should hold that this
| defense cannot avail the defendants here,
as l think the plaintiffs can maintain their
case without reference to the alleged illegal
transaction.
This was insisted upon by counsel for
plaintiffs who cited many authorities in
support of his contention amongst Otherss
Gregg VS.. Wyman, 4 CuSh 327.
Smith VS.. Barstow ? Mich. 135, where the
subject is fully considered.
The principle has been recognized by this
Court. (See Refs VS.. Wendell, 3 Haw. 400
1t becomes necessary to consider how this
principle applies to the case before me.
The~matter is to some extent historical
Rumors of existence of a claim by Aki
against His Majesty had been cAIrrent for
some time and had been freely commented
upon in the public press.
On the Both Of June, 1887, at a mass
meeting held in Honolulu, and which Cul
minated in revolution and the prOmulga-
ton of a new Constitution this matter was
among others, taken into consideration
and certain resolutions or demands OF
which the following is one were forwarded
to His Majesty:
Third. In order. SO far as possible, to
remove the stain now resting upon the
Throne we request of the King that he
Sh.ln INN of fn ha
made of the sum tO-wit Seventy-one thou
sand dollars ($71 ,000) recently obtained by
him in violation OF law and of his oath of
office under promise that persons from
whom the same was obtained should re-
ceiVe the license to sell opium, as provided
by the statute of the year 1856
To which His Majesty was pleased to
send the following reply:
To the third proposition, We reply,
that We do not admit the truth of the mat
ters stated therein, but will submit the
whole subject to Our new Cabinet and will
gladly act according to their advice and
Willcause restitution to be made by the
parties found responsible"
From the evidence of Mr. ThurstOn. the
Minister of the Interior, and of Mr.. Ash
ford, the Attorney General, it appears that
the Cabinet had advised His Majesty to
make some settlement of this claim before
the meeting of the Legislature (Which it
seems to me was their duty to dO) That
about the end of last October and the be-
ginning OF November, at meeting of the
Cabinet, His Majesty admitted that he had
received this money, but claimed it was a
gift to him and it was arranged that the
revenues from the Crown land should be
appropriated to the repayment of this
money
The defendant, c. P Iaukea, then His
Majesty's Chamberlain and Private Secre-
tarY, endeavored to raise sufficient sum
by mortgage of His Majesty's private pro-
perty, to satisfy the claim or part Of it,
and applied to the defendant Damon who
declined and the loan was not effected.
Mr.. ThurstOn testified that the sole OBJ
ject of the Cabinet was to settle this claim, |
and that they were not interested in OBJ |
tanning payment of the debts or claims of !
other creditors, but upon receiving a state |
ment OF the amount OF the Kings debts |
from Mr.. Iaukea, they were SO aStOnished |
at the amount that they thought it would |
not be right to pay this claim in prefer |
ence to the others and ultimately advised !
His Majesty to make an assignment in |
trust for the payment of all claims pro |
ia TIA, and the trust deed before the Court |
after negotiation with some of the princi- |
pal creditors, as to who should be the
trustees and as to the payment of this |
claim was executed, Mr.. Castle asserting |
to the arrangement on behalf of Aki.
Mr., Castle teStifieS that at or about the |
time the deed was executed, His Majesty
sent for him and that he met His Majesty |
L
when His Majesty admitted he had re-
ceived the money and was alone respon-
5ible for it.
1t is unnecessary for me to go through
the testimony as TO the reasons why Axis
name was not mentioned in the deed
What was the position of all parties at
he date of the execution of this deed?
HIS Majesty owed a large amount to
various creditors neither one of whom was
n position to enforce payment.
Aki or his representatives had also
claim which could not be enforced in the |
courts, but he had the solemn pledge of
His Majesty, publicly made, to cause re-
'tltutlOn TO be made, and it is TO be pre- |
'umed that the Legislature then in session
would have taken some action in the mat
er wherebyAki or his representative would
nave been enabled to obtain satisfaction.
By the execution of the deed His Ma
esty's other creditors were placed in a
better position, and the plaintiffs in a
worse one, as they had by con-
enting to the arrangement prevented any
lction by the Legislature.
1t appears to me that under the Circum-
tances the defendants might have we'll
)een advised to allow this claim and so
rave prevented the matter being again
gltated which all parties wished to avoid |
The deed does not purport to be in trust
or creditors generally, the first and prin-
ipal trust beng in these words;
l. The trustees shall receive and ex-
mime all existing accounts, bills and claims |
gainst the grantOr which shall within
hree months from the date of these pre-
ents be presented to them and shall ap-
,roye in writing so many and SO much |
laims as shall appear to them or to a ma
GRITTY of them TO be correct and lust and
properly certified and shall reject all other
laims and parts of claims, and at the end
# said three months, shall make written
tatement or list of all such claims. as they
hall have approved as aforesaid, to which
aid list they shall thereafter add only such
xisting claims against the grantor as shall
ither be authorized by court of compe-
ent jurisdiction, or be shown to their sat
sfactiOn to be just and correct"
This seems to me to contemplate the
resent claim, and in point of fact enables
laimants to establish their claims in the
,OurtS which they Wnnld not nther1.ir1 L. |