The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1892-07-28

BEFORE JUDD, c. j., B1CKERToN AND
DOLE, J. J.
c. A. left a power of attorney. with c; II;
which did not contain authority to lend
C. AS money. The fact of the app
pontment of G. Fl by G. A. by letter
of attorney was advertised in the news
papers and J. A. H. was aware OF It.
After c. A. left this Kingdom, G. H.
gave to ]. A. II. check on bank
for $29, 900. 10 to pay his &C. H.'s) debt
IoJ. a. H., signing the check G. A.
per G. n. attorney.
Held: the knowledge by ]. A. h. that it
was @. Is money that was rendered
him and that C., II. was G. AS agent
by letter of attorney put j. A. II. upon
inquiry to ascertain if g. H. had au-
thorlty to use his principals &c. Al
monty in that way.
j. A. II. held liable to &. A. for the money
so paid.
n as to the good character of Z. n.
over a year before the payment In
question does not estop q. A. from as
sorting that the loan OF G. II. to him
self OF G. AS money was without au-
thority.
The giving by the agent OF G. A. of a re-
csipt for note made by @. H. to @. A.
for thu money in question IS not OF
itself evidence OF ratification OF the
loan.
OPINION OF THE COURT PER JUDD, C. J.
Having heard the arguments in
this case and we'll considered the
pleadings and proofs, we have come
to the conclusion that the decision
of Mr.. Justice Dole filed on the 23d
March, 1892, should be sustained.
We observe that the date of the
carefully worded receipt by Mr..
Damon to Chun Hoy of Mr..
Afong's papers is August Oath,
1891, four days after the begin
ming of the suit in question. This
receipt is explained by counsel to
be in exchange for one previously
given. This former receipt is not
before us, but its absence is not
important as there is no evidence
that the note receipted for, made
by Chun Hoy, was taken by Mr..
Afong's attorney as a ratification
by Mr.. Along of Chun Hoy's loan
to himself.
1t was urged by us on ap-
peal, that Mr.. Hopper's state
nient that Mr.. Along had repre-
resented to him (Hopper) that
Chun Hoy was a man of integrity
and that Mr.. Hopper might place
absolute confidence in what Chun
Hoy said or did, ought to be re-
ceived. We doubt very much if
under the statute allowing this APP
peal it could be received as evil
dence, since as Mr.. Hopper had
been on the stand as a witness in
the lower court, this statement was
not "newly-discovered evidence"
However this may be, the testi-
mony of Mr.. Along as to the char
acter of Chun Hoy was made over
a year before the transaction under
consideration, and does not work
an estoppel against Along, for he
did not make the representation
with a view to influencing Mr..
Hopper to receive from Chun Hoy
his { Afong's) money. He had no
knowledge Of Chun Hoy's intention
to offer his principals money, and
Chun Hoy did not take the money
until about fortnight after Mr..
Along had left here for China,
and could not be COM
municated with. 1t presents
the case of a man with a previous
good character doing a dishonest
act. Doubtless Mr.. Hopper be-
lieved Chun Hoy to be still honest,
and no imputation can be made of
Mr.. Hopper's sharing in the dis
honesty. He believed that Chun
Hoy had Mr.. Afong's consent to
the loan to himself But the law
puts the person dealing with the
agent of an absent principal upon
inquiry where the circumstances
point out a path of investigation to
be pursued. In this case the knowl-
edge of the existence Of the power
of attorney should have impelled
Mr.. Hopper to examine it. If he
had he would not have taken the
check.
Decree affirmed.
Hon lulu, July IL, 1892.
A. s. Hartwell for plaintiff; F. M.
Hatch for Chun Hoy, defendant;
w. r. Castle and A. p. Peterson for
defendant.