The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1891-09-14
JUDICIAL DECISIONS.

NJ Appeas on Ast" taX Rcimrnc-.
Judge Bickerton on SATURDAY. rem
dered his dec sion in The case of The
Lihue Plantation VS.. Joseph Is. Ha-
make, deputy tax assessor and col
Iector for the District of Lihue, Is
brought by Paul tsenherg aud others
doing business under the name and
style Of THE Lihue Plantation, 4" to
recover $780, taxes paid to defend
ant under protest Plaintiffs are the
lessees Of the crown land of Wailua.
On the first OF September, 1890, they
made returns to the defendant of the
co.partnership property, but simply
returned the land of Wailua" without
returning any amount as the lease
hold value. Mr.. Farley, assessor-in-
chief for Kauai assessed the lease
hold value at ST. 99l. Plaintiff
wanted to appeal, but, as the returns
were not made in time, the certificate
was refused and the taxes paid under
protest.
His Honor quotes several decisions
in the Supreme Court, to the effect
that where returns were made
after the time, or not made
at all, the Court could not grant
relief. He Therefore concludes:
SIN view Of the above authorities
and the fact that the plaintiffs made
no return to the assessor until Sep
TENDER the first, one month too late,
or after the time required by the
statute, viz, July 31sl, | find that
plaintiffs are bound by the assess
ment of the assessor. | therefore
order judgment for the defendant.
F. M. Hatch for plaintiffs; Deputy
Attorney. General for defendant.
Chief Justice Judd has rendered
decision in l.. Ahlo VS.. Wong Fat.
1t was bill in equity praying that
deed of certain minors interest in
real estate at Waipio, Eva, be order
ed to be conveyed TO the plaintiff.
Plaintiff had been for some years
agent of defendant, advancing him
money 10 carry on rice and cane
planting. In December, 1888, the
parties wishing to make settlement
of account, Wong Fat agreed to con-
vey to Ahlo for S 90 of the debt
three parcels of land situate at Wal
pic. The title deeds were placed in
the hands of w. II. Castle, attor-
ney, on which he was to prepare
the deed. Mr.. Castle told his
client that the deeds were not in
Wong Fats but in Tui Fo Afat's
name. Wong Fat claimed this was
his nmeo and that the property was
his.
Investigation proved that Wong
Fat frsudulently used the name of
his sou. half Chinese minor, to
whom the property belonged. Geo.
Lucas, Jr., guardian of tne minor,
testified that the money Pad Tor the
first lot was the minors, I'll the con-
sideration for the other two lots was
Wong Fats money, The Court finds
that there was fraud committed
upon Ahlo by Wong Fat, who had
also committed fraud on his son.
Wong Fat himself testified that the
money to buy the last two lots was
derived from rents and profits of the
lot bought with his sons money.
His Honor decides: II have come
to the conclusion that the most equi-
table method of righting this wrong
is to decree lien upon the premises
in favor of Ahlo for the sum of $500
and interest from the 9th Deccm-
Der, 1883, at nine percent per an
mum, and when this is fully paid 10y
the rents to accrue or by Wong Fat,
Ahlo is to quit-claim the premises to
Lui Fo Afat, the infant son of Wong
Fat" W. r. Castle for plaintiff;
j. H. Barenaba for defendant.