The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1889-01-08
In the Circuit Court of the Third
judicial Circuit. May Term,
1888. Assumpsit.
ApoNA, ALAI, AHUNA AND AwANA VS..
d. KAMAI.
Decision of Mr. Justice Me0uIlg.

by consent transferred for trial to the
Circuit Court sitting at Hilo, the
locality Of the transaction and of the
parties. Jury was waived local
Circuit Judge Lyman, being wit
ness IN the case, did not sit, and the
trial was had before Mr.. Justice
McCully.
The plaintiffs bring action on a
contract in which the defendant is
the first party and the plaintiffs the
second party, for the cultivation Of
tract of land in sugar cane, of sixty
five acres more or less, at the price
of fifty dollars per acre. 1t is adj
mitted that the contract work was
well done and within the time stipu-
lated, and it is admitted that an ex-
act survey of the land makes it 61.92
acres, and the plaintiffs reduce the
whole amount accordingly to S3,096,
give a credit for $923,50 paid on
account and claim the balance of
S2,172.50.
The defense is payment in full.
The largest item in the difference be-
tween the parties is $1,400
1t appears that the defendant had
previously had contract with Alai
and Amin for the planting and cult
walton of the same lot of cane That
after about six months one of them
became dissatisfied and wished to
abandon the contract This was as
scented to by the defendant, who then
made the contract on which this ac-
ton is brought, with the four plain
tiffs, one of whom, Alai, was a party
to the first contract. The defendant
endeavored to maintain that the
agreement, as orally made. and be-
fore it was reduced to writing, was
that the four plaintiffs should take
up the job where the two former con
tractors had left it, and for the con
sideration of fifty dollars per acre
for the whole period of labor ON the
crop from planting to the finish, say
about twelve months, do the fnaf six
months labor, and receive the I'M
paid balance of this rate, but this
was held by the Court to be inadmis-
ible, and is mentioned only to ex-
plain the defendants attitude in the
case. He endeavored to show that
such was the agreement also made in
writing, by producing a paper of
which the following is an English
5000
ain consideration Of what we
have received, we agree to pay d.
Kamai, of Hilo, Hawaii; two hundred |
dollars and the debt of Alai and |
Ain on the former contract at the
of six months from the |
first day of May, 1887, and the hire |
of the mules at the time the amount |
of their work shall be ascertained, |
out of the pay for cultivating the |
cane under d. Kamai."
This instrument is signed by three |
Of the plaintiffs. 1t was written by |
Judge Lyman, except the sentence
in brackets, which is interlined,
which was written by the defendant.
It was shown in evidence that a
few days after the execution of the |
contract, with acknowledgment of |
signatures in the Office of the Cir
cult Judge, the parties, one of the
plaintiffs excepted, came again and
had conversation respecting their
agreement, and that it resulted in
Judge Lyman, who explained the
business to the plaintiffs, writing the
above instrument as expressing what
was further agreed upon.
The defendant swears that the in
matter was written in be-
,ore the three plaintiffs signed, with
jhe knowledge of Judge Lyman, and
| full explanation to the plaintiffs,
md that the unexpressed amount of
he debt of the old contractors which
he new contractors agreed to take
Up was $1,400.
Two natives who We're in the Office
give some support to this statement.
Judge Lyman testifies that he re-
no such alteration of the
instrument.
Without discussing at length all
he incidents upon which my conclu-
ion is formed, L say L am clearly of
opinion that the testimony Of the
defendant is wholly false in respect
o this having been written before the
signature. The instrument is en-
tiled on the back, in the defendants
handwriting Mote (bta aie) of
Alai and Ahuna and Apona and
Awana, $500" 1t was always in de-
endant's possession, never having
,een surrendered to plaintiffs after
and would seem to have
,een so endorsed before he under
ook to make it an obligation for
j, 500.
The defendants copy of the con
ract was not exhibited in the trial
It Hilo. 1t is shown here. There is
n it an obvious and apparent inter
collation. in these words land to
,ay the debt of Alai and Aim on the
Id contract which is S1,400." This
5 a more foolish instance of an at
empt to misrepresent the agreement
nade between the parties than the
Iteration of the so-called "note," as
he plaintiffs copy would always
onfute it.
The agreement being susceptible
f only one reading, that Is, of fifty
ollars per acre for the service which ]
ba YlafOfIffc rrroY.a n ,,o-fr,,,, H. |