The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1889-08-27
Supreme Court of the Hawaiian
Islands-In Banco. In Equity.
July Term, 1889.

MARK GREEN, PLAINTIFF, VS..
ALEXANDER J. CARTWRIGHT,
S. NJ. DAMON AND C. P. IAU-
KEA, TRUSTEES OF His MAJESTY,
DEFENDANTS.
On appeal from decree Of Preston j.
JUDD, c. J., M'cUL1Y, PRESTON. BIcKEBToN,
AND DOLE, il.
Opinion OF the Court by Judd, c. j.
Upon a careful consideration of
this case we are of opinion that the
decision of Mr.. Justice Preston
thereon, rendered on the Doth June,
1889, should be sustained, and ac-
cordingly affirm the decree therein,
dismissing the bill.
A. S. Hartwell for plaintiff; F.
NJ. Hatch and w. A. Whiting for
defendants.
Honolulu, Aug. 9th. 1889.
The JoUoUing is the Opinion of Pres
ton J. referred to an the above
decision.
The bill states that the complain
ant and one Michael Phillips carried
on business in Honolulu as import
ers and dealers in dry goods, cloth
ing, etc., under the firm name of
an. Phillips & Co." until the 25th
day of January last, when said
Phillips died, when the complain
ant became, and at the time of fl
ing the bill, was the sole surviving
partner Ill said firm. That His
Majesty, on the 2Sth day of Febru-
airy, 1887, owed said firm the sum
of 50, S9O.95 for goods and materials
Heretofore provided by said firm
for, and delivered to the order of
His Majesty, at his request, accord
ing to bill of particulars annexed,
and that said sum, together with
interest thereon, was then owing to
complainant as such surviving part
ner. That the defendants are trus-
tees, acting under deed of trust
dated the 21st day of November,
1857, whereby, amongst other
things, the defendants are required
to pay out of their trust funds such
claims against His Majesty as
should be allowed by a court of
competent jurisdiction pro rata
with such other claims against His
Majesty as should appear to defend
ants to be just, and which should
have been presented to them within
three months from date of said
deed, and that by said deed His
Majesty assigned certain property
in trust for paying such claims as
aforesaid. That said claim was
presented to the defendants within
said period of three months, but
the defendants refused to pay same.
And the complainant prayed that
such claim should be established
and the defendants directed to pay
the same pro rata with other claims
against His Majesty which should
have been allowed by the defend
ants or by a court OF competent
jurisdiction.
The defendants, by their answer,
admit the copartnership of the COM
plainant and NJ. Phillips and that
the complainant is the sole surviv-
ing partner, as set forth in said bill
of complaint and further answer as
follows
"2. And defendants deny that
His Majesty Kalakaua, on Febru-
airy %, 1887, or at any time prior
to that date or since, owed plaintiff
or his said firm, said sum of nine
thousand eight hundred ninety and
95-I00 (S9, 89O.95) dollars, or any
sum whatsoever, or was in any way
indebted to them or either of them,
and deny that the goods and ma
terials set forth in the bill of partic-
ulars annexed to the complaint,
were provided for, and delivered to
the order of His Majesty, or upon
his request, and deny any and all
liability of His Majesty Kalakaua
for, or on account of the said claim
of plaintiffs. But defendants say
that they are informed and believe
and on such information an belief,
aIege and aver that the goods and
materials mentioned in plaintiffs
claim were provided for the funeral
of H. r. H. Likelike, and were
ordered by and provided at the re-
quest of His Majesty's Ministers
and not by His Majesty, and that
His Majesty is in no way liable for
the same.
80. And defendants admit that
they are the trustees now qualified
and acting under deed of trust of
date November 81, 1887, but say
that the other matters set forth in
the third section of the PLAINTIFFS
bill are matters within the deed of
trust, and are not correctly set forth |
and crave leave to refer to the deed |
Of trust when produced.
"a. And defendants admit that
the plaintiff on behalf of said firm
presented a claim to defendants
within the time prescribed by said
deed of trust for presenting the
same, but say and allege that on or
about April %, 1888, the defend
ants did reject said claim of plain