The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1889-07-30
SUPREME COURT.
g. Euuas -. c. Brewer & Co. Assump-
sit.

-l.- l--4-tr VI = N---'- ~ 80
=----=--z binding; and the defence was
--z--s building had not been finished
~ Delivered within the time specified
"a --a contract
--s-az.fsas 70 the Jury by Mr.. Justice
gs--z--v V7z-e - follows
.-z--lsne-. 7 said 10 you before that
-- mus entirely exclude rom your
5 any observations made between
~ -.-=zs and NJ Carter about regard
~ az E5s-a-z-llC- tle SIX months term
= --a contract
- rz--Eez settled their agreement
500 written contract, by which both
z- --a bound, notwithstanding any
-a-- -r-al nav have been made by
H. ---s- TINS contract was made with
~ .-----a Lucas after bids were asked
brand lenders obtained.
--ar settled that they would take the
-r--= z-l -hey made their contract which
-s u1-a parties strictly and entirely
--zie-lzl whether il Is hard case
III one CT 51- the other. There Is . claim
81 -le defendant 70 have sustained loss
% zc-1--l q MS building not being com
-%-=z wl-hl- contract time. Should he
--zz- --z- loss OF should Mr.. Lucas Mr..
--1ezs contracted and i Is one Of the es-
SO saue--s q the contract that the
l- should be finished within SIX
--u--1s from the date OF the contract.
Tz-v q this class o. contracts 3
--z-z-v ggl--l have been inserted OF so
--- Z month or : Day Tor the time
- 1tic1 the work was not done al
~ -le INIT OF time stated II the con-
--a-- fl- -le completion OF the work. In
Us Csc -tIere J. 10 sECh clause, but If
--H-a 1zs been S damage resulting from
- ua---1-urle-iCl II that time, that can
u --5vs- - i has been offered to be
s--e Il 11is case. The contract was TO
between the 18th Of August
-ae 1-th OF February, SIX
--1--ls- nov, i was a contract
-zz= iar surk 10 be done in Honolulu
40 lrIe- ms contract 10 build brick
.-l- 5z-E and therefore knowing the con-
--a- o. tle weather 81 that time OF the
va. i uzlng the RAINY season il Is pre-
s--e5 that Al alloNance Of time was
nae f1- -1zt purpose. The contract
SHOWS -le building s-&s % be completed
81 months unless prevented by &C
zs5s--s No accident has been so
sa5E- here. I should say an accident
=5-E he 81 earthquake, which would
----le the walls down, or , fire which
r DESTROY their work OF trdal wave
O. Ere-l-F- lUI raining i not an acCl-
5e-- An extraordinary flood would
---s within the illustrations ! have
--s--l--e5. The word accident is to
= --ka- El -he general sense. In fact
= -zEl- b. a. accident II through no
Ia -la builder the building after
erosion had fallen down, Is for instance
. Es-e 50 erected - 10 lean against
ze wa + ci A adjoining building which
lal right - lean against and fell
EoE-- Vow - 20 causes not under his
1---a This contract was made Tor
3 1-z5luE 70 u put up here IN Honolulu
r = constructor resident n Honolulu;
: riz-as are supposed 10 know what
ca - co-1en IN Honolulu and what
ae- = seut Tor 20 San Francisco or
BISON. or wherever else 1t must be sent
-- and i would not have done for
instance. % have sent TO England Tor
E1-E because i might be got
-1az-s- -1ere- and throw the loss Of time
Il AZ defendants. Il was made in view
u -le eE-s-lEE circumstances.
The contracting parties had right,
-.e5--e closing this contract 10 conclude
----- The tine a. one OF the elements; it
GRANNY made q great deal Of difference
E-eEer < Co, whether the
--=.-nr w4s 70 be done IN SIX, nine or
-re months zn1 that was one OF the
ms -lev contracted Tor, and any loss
z-s-.--=z -v the contracting parties does
-1- E----ErE the contracting builder to
-l--z -l4- loss upon Brewer < Co. IN
- rzrl-5 ms CONTROL. l will leave
- v1-- e1usilsrztion whether any
--l-as have been shown here beyond his
---1 should say extraordinary
-z--ss and u1- ordinary causes TAe
5sEE l- --a be-InnIng a. 10 the eXcaya-
---- = -1- an extraordinary cause or be-
lis control The fact that one
-----se--- -z- away with the money 10
y. -s-s f1- carving on the work cannot
-= -la injury q the delay upon
Brewer * Co. because the contractor
s--- d LIS oWl expense and loss I'M
--=zz-aF pursue the work II II were
-.1z- 30 be done
-E nos do 70 say because the
---e g1--rzc-lr ran away, let Brewer
L. .-- n-= month or SIX months use OF
-E
--- 4 -.ss. If '' nor anything Ike
MS Leluc-i0n iron the full
-.a contract. They have paid
- -re contract less i, l2S IN all. They
--a shown % y0u BY the evidence OF
E--- Jones -lz- they lost rentals TO the
er-ar- 15 $50 pei month engaged for
--s-r -he ---e or the completion Of the
E. amounting 10 as much as
f7. and 7 refuse the instructions OF
1--- Ashford plaintiff : counsel that be-
--=e -hev did noc execute lease that
- -s-s shoald no, he so considered.
-.ler have proven % you by evidence
-s- i not coutradicted that they had an
s--a-eae-t for the rent OF that build
~ and they have showed that loss.
Tigr -ook those rents Immediately after
-ne Hu7l5Ing Vas completed They have
saeur roz los OF 500 paid to their
ssz-s-rs-ne architect II Is not however
~ -he defendant 70 recover anything
sI-slu--r -le amount Of loss that has
t,ssz proven j. greater than the amount
al 11e unpaid balance, Il Is that the
r.lElu-d cannot recover anything from
-le 5eisniEurs. am asked 10 instruct
ruz - ID fhe Improperly OF ordering
--sese ulE-e-lzls by sailing vessels instead
ID t. s-ezn vessels. Ii was not for
ca-c-zrt1- - lose time by taking lower
E-s-at nE sailing vessels and longer
ue- and i he lose thereby il Is not the
- Il E-eEer < Co. - with regard to
.---.- -. -ra-.- 1--a here II n ,rara