The Hawaiian gazette., 1889-05-14
BEF1EE DOLE, J.
Decision

The bill alleges that the defendant,
Cartwright, a. attorney in fact OF
Emma kaleie0nalani, since deceased,
reSfsre. delivered on January lst 1879,
s lease signed and sealed by said de-
fer5sur on the one part and Allen
and Stsckpole on the other part,
whereby the Ahupuaa OF hawalhaI,
On The Island Of Hawaii, was leased
Il SAil Allen and StackpOle for a term
or ten wears thereafter at an annual
rental OF $50, and taxes, excepting
certain reservations therein named,
with s covenant that the lessees
should have the privilege Of renewal
al SEIl lease. subject however, to new
agreement therefor, and that the said
lease was or July lSt- 1855, with the
written consent Of said Cartwright,
assigned by the said lessees TO the
plaintiffs, who still occupy the de-
missed premises under the same; that
rhe said Cartwright Is the devisee Of
the said premises in trust 10 pay the
income thereof 10 said defendant, hu-
-uizkes- during his lifetime, and at
his death 10 convey the same 10 his
E~~1e. ii any. otherwise TO the Queens
EaSuitzl that the said Cartwright,
re-a-dless Of the plaintiffs rights I'M
DIR the said covenant, has executed
Iea-a Of the said premises for term
~ fifteen years from January lst, 1852,
Il su annuaI rental Of $1,000. 10 r. A.
Ru-eharit. A. e. Burchardt, +. Bur
-ha-ir and John Mcguire, partners
under the stvle Of the kahua Ranch
Company. defendants aS aforesaid, and
rha. the said company took the said
lease with actual knowledge that the
plaintiffs held the said premises un-
de- the first named lease and that
they were OF peculiar value TO the
pIs5uri-fS besides their intrinsic value,
from the fact that they join other
land of the plaintiffs, used by them
IN the rauCniuE business, and that
-ne plaintiffs desired and intended to
renew their said lease; that the said
company might have aScerained from
The plaintiffs the existence OF the said
covenant Of renewal. The bill fur
-aar alleges that the said premises
have s peculiar value TO the plaintiffs
- aforesaid, that ever since the said
a. EumeuT 20 them of the said lease
they have desired and intended and
sin desire that the said lease be re-
neses 10 them and that a new agree
ueu- therefor be made pursuant TO
The sid covenant, and that they have
requested the said Cartwright TO exc
cuIe with them such agreement, and
r1z- without intending to waive their
rights thereto, they have offered 10
sid Cartwright 10 take lease of the
said premises for q further term of
fifteen years al an annual rental of
S591.
The plaintiffs claim that under the
allegations. the said company are
chz-gs4ole with notice Of the said
covenant and OF the plaintiffs inter
es-- therein, and that they have taken
their said lease subject TO the plain
ri1E> rights under the same, and pray
That they be decreed 10 surrender
their ssfl lease 70 the said Cartwright
End that he be decreed 10 accept the
same and 10 execute 10 plaintiffs
lease u the premises according 10 the
said covenant.
All q the defendants filed answers
10 the bill OF complaint.
The defendant Cartwright, in his an
sprer s6mits the lease to Allen and
~-zEkp1le with the exception of the
alleged covenant Of renewal, which he
denies HefGrCher admits the assign
meat OF the said lease TO the plaintiffs
and that they are still occupying the
said PREMISES under such lease: also
that he i the devisee OF the said prem
iseS in trust a. alleged by the bill, and
that ; lease was executed and deliver
Il 20 the hahua Ranch Company,
defeE1aufs, a. alleged by the bill, but
states, In explanation thereof, that he
does not know OF his own knowledge
whether or not said premises adjoin
plaintiffs other land, or that plain
ti-fs desired or intended TO obtain
new lease but that in the year 1857
ne notified W. F. Allen the agent Of
the plaintiffs. that other persons We're
desirous OF leasing the said premises
ST the expiration Of the existing lease
and that be would receive bids for
new lease that thereupon the said
Allen. a. such agent, made an offer TO
lease the said premises for term Of
fifteen wears at an annual rental of
$50 which he. the said Cartwright,
refused that thereafter he received
from the said hahua Ranch Company
al offer for term Of fifteen years at
81 annual rental of 100 and taxes,
which offer he accepted and executed
the lease 10 the said company as
zforesaid, and thereUpon notified the
said Allen thereof The said answer
further admits the plaintiffs demand
for q renewal Of the existing lease I'M
eer The alleged covenant for renewal,
few weeks before the beginning
81 these proceedings, and alleges that
No such covenant i contained in the
couu-erp4rt az the said first lease
which i in his possession, and that
neither the said lease nor the alleged
covenant Of renewal are recorded in
the Registry OF Deeds.
The kahua Ranch Company, de-
senGants, In their answer admit the
execution of the said lease in their
favor. and that al and before the exc
cHrlon thereof they knew that the
plaintiffs were in possession Of the
premises aud that they were informed
ihzt plaintiffs held possession under
= lease from Cartwright, defendant,
acting for Emma Kaleleonalani, but
did not know the terms thereof, fur
fher than that il was about to expire,
buf DENY that they knew that the
premises were Of peculiar value to the
plaintiffs a. alleged in the bill Their
answer further states that before the
execution Of thessid lease they did not
know and had not heard of the said
alleged covenant for renewal of the
said ease. nor OF the intention or de-
<ine al the plaintiffs to enter into an