The Hawaiian gazette., 1889-03-05

/ leasing the land fer fifty years at forty
i dollars per annum. Certain other Inn
! portant provisions OF the lease he did mo-
find were explained to her or that she
| understood them, or that they were con
| templated in the agreement between hel
| and the defendant. But under the ale
cations and prayer in the bin he could
not decree 3 reform in the lease. The
| bin was therefore dismissed, with leave
! TO bring new bill.
An appeal from this decision was ar
gued before the Supreme Court in banco.
In their opinion now filed they begin by
saying they do not encourage parties to
leases, agreements or contracts resortlng
TO the Courts to be relieved OF their obli-
cations; but party should be informed
OF and understand the contents of doc
ument before executing it. They find
that the plaintiff is old and deaf and did
not have the lease fully read to her.
Very important provisions, such rs one
for renewal another fifty wears, promises
TO support her on certain conditions, etc,
were not mentioned 10 the woman.
There has evidently been an attempt
TO take advantage OF the Ignorant and
deaf Old woman" say the Court. The
whole document bears the earmarkS Of
fraud, and we do not think that
such 4 lease executed under the
circumstances should be allowed
10 stand" The opinion decides
as follows: ''The PRAYER of the bin will
be granted and the lease ordered 10 be
cancelled on the following conditions:
That the plaintiff shall pay TO defendant
the actual cost OF the building school
house, erected on land, said amount to
be ascertained and found by master Of
this Court, and should the plaintiff be
unable to pay said amount then the
master 10 find the number OF years and
terms Of 4 lease TO defendant To Compen-
safe him for his outlay on said building,
the plaintiff 10 pay such amount as found
Oy the master or execute = lease on terms
rs found by him within sixty days after
continuation OF masters report. On
compliance with these conditions the de-
cree Of the Court below will be reversed,
otherwise it will stand. Costs reserved
\ Rosa for plaintiff; c. Creighton for
defendant.
Chancellor Judd filed IN opinion March
lst upon bill in equity OF hekuawela
and haheauanui VS. Daniel kaleialii,
Elkapeka Macy and Samuel Macy, her
husband. In May, 1883, the defendants
action OF ejaCtmeut against the plaintiffs
and the kukaiau Plantation Company
was heard ami determined by Mr. JUS
tice Dole, the jury being waived. Judg-
ment was rendered in favor OF de-
PENDANTS plaintiffs in that suit for
certain landed rights in Hamakua,
Hawaii. This bill alleges that
plaintiffs counsel, 1Ir. Thompson,
waived jury in that sulJ without their
consent, and that owing to his deafness
and ignorance u the Hawaiian language
there was q general state If uisunder-
standing between him and them The bill
alleges other thhh-s bearing more on the
merits OF the land dispute, and prays
that execution in the judgment be STAYED
until further order Of the Court. The
Chancellor considers demurrer argued !
by defendants, also issues raised on the
merits, and concludes: Upon. i care
jul review Of the whole 1as= / can find
no reason Tor euj5.uiuE the enforcement |
u the judgment, and / dismiss the bill
4. :. HirrweLi for plaintiffs; !. p,
Peterson for defendants
p
his decision IN the trespass case Of
Robert HaIssead vs. James Gay. This
was the case, fully reported ct the time,
decided br POM Justice Dayton for the (
plaintiff with nominal damages. Upon :
4 statement OF the case agreed TO by .
clEns5. on both sides, the above JUS f.
tee who heard the case decides Il nave I
no doubt Is to tine lax on the Suhizct
Land formed by aIIuvioa, or the gradual /
and ImpsrCeptibie accTetiOn IRON the |
water, and land gained by reelection, or
the gradual and imperCeptible recession
of the water, belongs to the owner OF the
contiguous land to which the addition Is
made. t3Iany authorities are cited.
Il therefore find that the land upon
which the tTesDass was committed be-
-o1ged to the plaintiff, and affirm the
decision Of the lower Court with costs"
W. r. Castle for plaintiff i S. Hart
veil for defendant