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

of years, and accept selling and
possession of lands, tenements and
hereditaments and accept delivery
of all deeds and other assurances in
law therefor; to lease, let, demise,
bargain, sell, remise, release and
convey lands, tenements and hered-
itaments, and upon such terms and
conditions and under such terms
and conditions and under such COW
enants as he shall think fit; to sell
and dispose of goods, wares and
merchandise and chooses in action,
and other property in possession or
in action; and for me and in my
name, and as my act and deed, to
sign, execute, deliver and acknowl-
edge such deeds, covenants, in
dentures, agreements, bills of lad
ing, receipts, releases and satisfac-
ton of mortgages, judgments and
other debts, and all other instru-
ments in writing, of whatever kind
and nature, that may be necessary
or proper in the premises; and to
appear for and defend me in all ac-
ton at law or in equity that may
be brought against me.
GIVING AND GRANTING unto my
said attorney full power and author
ity to do and perform all and every
act and thing whatsoever requisite
and necessary to be done in and
about the premises, as fully to all
intents and purposes as 1 might or
could do if personally present, with
power of substitution and revo
cation; hereby ratifying and con-
firmIng all that my said attorney or
his substitute shall lawfully. do or
cause to be done by virtue of these
presents"
This power of attorney was re-
corded in the Registry of Deeds
November 26th, 1890, and notice
of it was published in the Homo
lulu newspapers, as follows: "No-
TICE. Notice is hereby given that
during my absence from this King
dom Chun Hoy will act for me un-
der power of attorney. Dated Ho~
nolulu, October 16, 1890.
(Signed) c. Along"
November 1st, 1890, the defend
ant Chun Hoy delivered to the de-
PENDANT J. A. Hopper check on
the bank of Bishop & Co., of Homo
lulu, of which the following is a
copy:
"Banking House OF Bishop & Co.
No. 1861.
Honolulu, III. l., Nov. 1st, 1890.
Pay to Mr.. J. A. Hopper or order
twenty-nine thousand and six huR-
dred and seventy-nine one hum
dredths dollars ($29, 600.79).
c. Along, per Chun Hoy"
Endorsed 81. A. Hopper, per w.
L. H."
This check was presented by
Hopper to the bank on the same
day it was given to him, and twen-
ty-nine thousand six hundred dol
lars and seventy nine cents, the
amount of the check, were paid to
him from the plaintiffs bank ac-
count and applied by Hopper to the
settlement of debt owed to him
by the SAID Chun Hoy. After this
transaction the plaintiff revoked
the power of attorney to Chun Hoy
and appointed S. M. Damon as his
attorney in fact. Chun Hoy was
indebted to Hopper in large
amounts of money, and had mort
gagged his rice plantation interest to
the latter to secure the payment OF
such debt and for future advances,
part of the debt being for the
purchase price of the said planting
interest.
These statements are made by
the bill of complaint and admitted
in the answers of both defendants,
but Hopper in his answer explains
that he had no information suffi-
cient to form a belief that the funds
from which the check was paid
were the plaintiff IS, except that the
| check was drawn in the name of
Along.
The plaintiff further alleges on
information and belief that at the
time of bringing the action (Au.
gust Goth, 1917 Chun Hoy had nc
money of his own with which to
pay plaintiff the amount of the said
check and interest, and no securi.
ties or property except such as had
been so mortgaged to Hopper.
This Hopper neither admits or de-
MES, but says he has no information
sufficient to inform a belief there.
upon. The plaintiff also alleges
that at the time of the payment OF
the said check the defendant Hop
per knew that such money was not
Chun Hoy's, but belonged to the
plaintiff. Hopper's answer to this
is that Chun Hoy had informed
him in October, 1890, that he had
made arrangements to procure
money from Along at a lower rate
of interest than was payable under
the mortgages, and that he would
pay out of such loan the amount of
his Indebtedness under the mort
cages which arrangement was
agreed to and was effected through
the said check.
The plaintiff claims that the pay
ment of the said check to Hopper
by Chun Hoy was misapplication
of the funds of the plaintiff held in