The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1889-04-23

!
J. K. NAHALE AND KELuKoA FOB
AND on BEHALF OF THEMSELVES
AND II9 OTHERS VS.. CHARLES
KAIAIKI,
| BEFORE JUDD, C. j., M'oULLY, PRESTON AMI
BICKERToN, u.
! lMr. Justice Dole not sitting, as he had
been attorney in the case.)
Opinion Of the Court by Bickerton, j.
This matter comes here on appeal
by plaintiffs from the decree on the
! decision of Mr.. Justice McCully.
Decision Of Mr.. Justice McCulEy.
The foundation of the bill of COM
plant is allegations to the effect that
! the complainants, who are nearly all
of them resident upon the three adj
| iacent lands of Keauhou !, keauhou
2, and Kahaluu, in the district of
! North KOna, in the Island of Hawaii,
| in the year 1882, formed a Hui, or
! association, not Incorporated, for the
| purpose of obtaining lease of these
| lands from the late Ruth Keeliko-
lani, and that they deputed the de-
| PENDANT as their agent and repre-
sentative and on their behalf, to
proceed to Honolulu and obtain
for such Hui such q lease. And
that, pursuant to such concerted ac-
ton, and on behalf of such Hui, the
defendant went to Honolulu, his
travelling expenses being paid by a
contribution of . cents each from the
compliments, and obtained a lease.
The allegation that a Hui was
formed, and that defendant procured
a lease as their agent is denied.
A great amount of testimony was
taken during five days as to what was
done in 1882, and in the years follow
ing up to the time of bringing this
suit.
AS J regard the determination upon
this point as controlling the case, I
now give no further abstract OF the
bill and answer, and shall consider
what is to be decided upon it.
ItIs in the evidence of both parties
that in 1882 the defendant, being a
resident upon one of these lands, took
steps to procure a lease OF them. He
carried or sent around among the
residents a paper addressed TO the
chiefess landowner, r. heelikolani, pc
titioning her to grant lease to
Hui of the residents. A considerable
number Of signatures was obtained;
a meeting of those interested was
then called.
At this point the evidence becomes
divergent and contradictory.
The complainants evidence is that
all things proceeded smoothly accord
ing to the design. 1t was determined
to send the defendant to Honolulu to
procure Il lease for themselves as u
Hui, and an assessment of % cents
upon each OF the intending members
Of the Hui, and in fact on all the
natives resident on these lands, or
pasturing animals thereon, was made
and for the most part then paid, in
pursuance of which action the de-
PENDANT did 90 to Honolulu as the
agent of the Hui.
On the other hand the testimony of
the defendant and the witnesses for
the defence is that of J. q. Hoapili,
his brother, and some other friends,
entirely defeated the purpose of the
meeting.
Hoapili was the lessee of the lands |
in question, and his lease had nearly |
three years to run. He was the dis |
trict magistrate, and sometimes the |
assessor or taX-collectOr of the dis |
trict He was a person of great in |
and his position gave him |
great power The residents upon the |
land were his tenants, paying the |
which he might impose
upon them. They might be ousted |
from the privileges and occupancy of |
the lands-their own limited kuleanas |
excepted. 1t must be believed that
this man could not quietly see himself |
deposed from the power, influence |
and profit which he enjoyed by being
the landlord Of this region. 1t must !
be believed that his tenantry would
fear the consequences of his displea-
sure if they should attempt to procure
a lease for themselves. He was their
until the LIST of January, 1885.
|, therefore believe the version that
MANY, if not most of those who had !
signed the petition withdrew or de
sired to withdraw their names; that
was accomplished at the
meeting; that no money was raised
to send defendant to Honolulu, and
that the meeting broke up in dis
order.
Nevertheless, the defendant came
to Honolulu, but not on account of
-he complainants' Hui, so-called. 1t
IS in evidence by all parties that there
was not an organizing or assGciating
which can, by the ordinary course of
business i'll these Hawaiian assOcia-
ions known as Huis, constitute one
n this instance. There was no list
made of the persons who were to con-
'ttute the Hui, and certainly no sub
to any articles or agree
nent; no one was bound.
The defendant was successful in
a lease. The party of the
second part is named and described as
Charles Kaiaiki in his capacity (ano)
# Luna Chief of the Hui of the
people leasing land at the two Keau-
lous and Kahaluu, Kona, Hawaii.
Before the date when this lease was to
,egin to run-January l, 1SS5-it was
ound necessary to make modifica
ion of it in respect to part of the
erritory above the mountain road,
Which was held by lease to other
,arties, and corresponding reduc-
ion in the rent. This was effected
" an entirely new lease, which, how |
yer, refers to the prior lease, between
he heir of Keelikolani, meantime
deceased, and the defendant. In this,
which appears TO have been drafted
rom the first lease, the second party
{, q l-i,,yI,1 l., n oil-i for tho Iui Hoo