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

bership in what they call the defend
ants Hui claiming TO have organized
themselves into another Hui, indie
pendent of the defendant, and without
his connection or assent. This cannot
be a Hui holding the defendants
lease.
The claim of the bill is, that the
lease was made to the people resident
on these lands
1t is to be said that the words of the
lease describing the second party are
not explicit, They do not import a
lease to the defendant alone, but to
him as the head of an association of
which the constituents are not named.
l think it may be likened to the
grant of corporate powers to A. B.,
his associates and their assigns. In
that view the Hui will be constituted
OF those who shall, by mutual agree
ment with the named lessee, associate
themselves with him and with each
other as the Hui of Lessees. 1t will
not be in the power of others to make
or declare themselves members of this
! Hui.
! But it is in evidence that the plain
tiffs, or many of them, have made
some payment on account of rent,
and as members Of the Hui of Lessees.
On the other hand, they have refused
to make later payments. The de-
PENDANT has no means of compelling
them as being members Of the Hui TO
make payment. l have held that
they are not in any way bound as
members. Their payment have not
constituted them such. They were
chargeable as tenants living upon the
land with all that they have paid,
and the payment has not constituted
them lessees.
In the view l have taken of the
facts and the law in this case, the
prayer of the compliments bill can
not be granted, and the bill is dis
missed with costs.
BY THE CoURT.-The evidence
seems to fully sustain the findings in
the above decision. The first witness
says: ave never had any under
standing who should constitute the
Hui, and who not" also, 1--WE had
no constitution or bylaws" Other
witnesses for the plaintiff testify to
the same effect. The evidence for
the plaintiff shows that defendant
raised the rent in 1856 from So to $40
per annum for each piece of land oc-
cupied by those people that were not
members of his Hui, and that some
,Qf them paid it,. but that he only
Charged the members of his own Hui
So per annum, and that the defendant
took the lands from those who refused
to pay the increased rent, thereby
showing beyond any question that
defendant made a distinction between
the people living on the lands in
question who. were members of his |
Hui and those who might be spoken
of as the "Nahale factiOn,n who were
not members. The plaintiffs evidence |
also shows that there were people, |
who claim to be plaintiffs in this case,
residing in Honolulu who had patches
of land under cultivation on these |
lands, and that persons on adjoining
lands paid IS per anRum for the pas
turage of their horses on these lands. !
This is quite inconsistent with the
contention of the plaintiffs, that de-
PENDANT leased these lands for the use
only of the people residing there and
belonging to the lands. Nakau saws:
Kaiaiki gave me back my money,
and told me had no further right in
the land; [ received 1.-THE money!
A. K. Hoapili * testifies that he
went to see Ruth Keelikolani about
these lands, that defendant and a
of people were there about it,
but that defendant was successful and
got the lease. 1t is clear from the
introduced by the plaintiffs
that there were two, if not more, par
ties trying to secure q lease from
but that defendant was
the successful one, and that he got
lease for himself and those that might
after associate themselves with him
and form Hui, which was eventually
done, and their names advertised.
The evidence for the defendant
shows that Hoapili had a lease of
those lands uneXpired at time de-
PENDANT procured his lease; that he
offered 81 900 to Keelikolani for new
she said: You have been
carrying on pretty high, and L am
going to give land to Kaiaiki at $780,"
And on another occasion at Kona
when the people told her she
could have got $1,000 per annum, she
said she had done what was best with
the land, with the haole Meyers adj
vice, and told them to sit down, and
not to speak again. Now, Hoapili
belonged to the Nahale-Hoapili-K IL
1oa faction; and it must be clear that
keelikolani did not intend or under
stand she was leasing the land to
defendant for these people or their
associates. The evidence also shows
hat Nahale spoke of certain people
Is his Hui, and Kaiaiki spoke of GER
ain people as his Hui. Kaiaiki
ormed his Hui in 1856, and Nahale
ormed much larger one, including
they were two separate and
distinct parties. The horses of those
yhs failed to pay rent were i'm
by defendant. This had al
Ways been done by Hoapili during his
ease.
The bylaws of the defendants Hui
ixed the rent at $40 per annum for
ach holding.
1t is very clear from the evidence,
nd from the acts of the parties, and
II the circumstances surrounding the
ase, that these plaintiffs have no
landing as members of defendants
TuI, and we are of opinion that the
ecree must be sustained. 1t is so
rdered, and the appeal is dismissed
With costs.