The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1889-01-08

DlShEh1ON D. AMI DOA'Esf d
Opinion of the Court per Judd, c. j.
This is bill IN equity for an ac-
count. The plaintiffs and defend
ants are co-partners, doing business
as rice planters at Mokuleia, Waia
lua, Oahu, under the name of Wing
Hong Wal Company. The accounts
were referred to Henry Smith, Esq,
a Master in Chancery, who took the
testimony offered on both sides as to
the disputed items and made several
reports to the Court, his investiga-
tons extending over several months.
His final report was confirmed by
Mr. Justice Bickerton on the 2Sth
September, 1883, and an appeal was
taken from the decree. The sole
point of exception presented to US is
in respect to 739 bags Of paddy of
the value of S1,335, which plaintiffs
contend were sent from the planta
ton at Waialua to defendants who
were the agents or managing part
ners of the co-partnership, and which
plaintiffs claim should be credited to
the company by defendants.
The Master found that the paddy
in question was not the property of
the partnership but belonged to
another company of planters, to-wit,
the Sun Hong Wal Company, who
occupied land in the neighborhood
and of whom the defendants were
also agents.
We are unable to disturb this find
ing. The settled practice of courts
of equity is to regard the report of a
master upon questions of fact refer
red to him as having substantially
the weight of the verdict of ajury,
and his conclusions are not to be set
aside or modified without clear proof
of error or mistake on his part.
Trow as. Berry, 10 Mass, 146.
The paddy in question, it is adj
mitted by both parties, was of the
second crop of 1884, which is usually
harvested in the latter months of the
year and was sent up to Mr.. Hop
per's cleaning mill in Honolulu
marked IS. II. W." the mark of the
Sun Hong Wal Company. The
plaintiffs claim that it was fraudu-
lently delivered by defendants to the
mill as the property of that COM
pany, whereas it should have been
credited to the Wing Hong Wal
Company of which they were part
ners. The defendants had interests
in both these companies and a
greater interest in the plaintiffs COM
pany, and it is difficult to see, with
out explanation, why they should
have been willing to deprive the
company lin which they were larger
owners) of this property, if it really
belonged to it. But we are shown
ali item of SIS 05 in the account fur
nished by defendants of their deal
ings with the partnership, paid by
them to the Pacific Navigation Com
pany in January, 1885, as freight"
and tits argued that this item was for
freight on some 1,133 bags of paddy
shipped from Waialua to Honolulu
which included the 739 bags in dis
pute. The charge in the account is
simply "freight'-not freight on
paddy. Counsel argue that at Z
cents bag, the 1,133 bags would
pay freight of $40 81 which is
near enough to the item of S78 95 in
the account to be considered as the
same item.
II the defendants had charged
the company with the " freight"
upon the 739 bags of paddy in dis
pute, it would be evidence that they
it as the plaintiff company's
But it is not SO charged
in the account, and we cannot pre-
sumo that this charge was upon
paddy alone.
What appears to us as decisive of
the matter is the proofs of the actual |
area of land from which the second |
crop of 1884 was taken. The plaintiffs
claim that it was 35 acres, because
rent for this amount of land was
paid by the company. Bat it APP
pears from the proofs on file that |
rent for 35 acres was
paid, it was paid in advance on the
expectation that all would be culti-
vated, and the landlord on finding |
that 10 acres had not been planted,
deducted the rent therefor at the
next settlement leaving it quite
clear that he was satisfied that only
I6 acres was actually cultivated in
ice for that harvesting 1t yielded
by the defendants account 394 bags,
which is less by nine bags per acre
as compared with the yield of twenty
acres for the crop previous, which
vas GIG bags, and which may be
accounted for by the vicissitudes of
Wind and rain storms which lessen
he crop, if occurring at or shortly
before the harvesting. However this
nay be, if 80 acres could reasonably
nave produced 1,133 bags, only 16
acres could not.
Upon the whole case we find no
,rror in the Masters finding, and
accordingly override the exception
md affirm the decree.
W. r. Castle and w. A. Whiting,
or plaintiffs A. S. Hartwell, for
Dated Honolulu, December Goth,
.SSS.
A Religious Sensation.