The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1892-08-19


20 father and to a meeting of the
Hawaiian Commercial Co, and will
let you know. / told John that it
had been hanging so long that 1t was
really TO his interest and to our in
terest to have the thing settled, and
he agreed with me that it was no
more than right that we ought to
settle it up As there were further
amounts of land taken Ia from time
to time by their fence, probably in
formed Mr.. Macfarlane about it. /
don't think that by any of my acts 1
indicated my consent to their plant
ing and fencing. l could not give
you the acreage Of the land enclosed
In the fence of the Hawaiian Com
mercial Co. that has been put in cane.
1t is not all in cane. The acreage
they had fenced was never all under
cultivation at one time.
(In answer to Mr.. HartwelD. When
i signed the complaint 1 did not sign
it when | read it in your Office. After
l read it l went outside and came
back and signed it. At the time that
that complaint was given TO me TO
sign l read it over and l objected to
one portion of it, wherein it stated
that l had protested against the Ha-
waiian Commercial and Sugar Co.
planting these lands, and l said then
that did not think / should sign
the complaint because as l looked
upon it had not protested, then you,
Judge, told me that you proposed
showing to the Court that when we
asked for division OF the commons
that was the protest you had refer
ence to in there. Upon our asking
for division you proposed to show
that that was the protest that you
had mentioned in the complaint, our
seeking division. Well, | said then
l will go ont, and / went out and
asked for information and got it, and
l was advised to sign the complaint
/ and | signed 1t; that Is the whole
/ thing 1t was legal advice that L
( obtained. l was told l had better
sign it and l signed it. You stated
that we proposed to show to the
Court that by our asking for dlvl-
sion it was an objection to their en-
closing and planting these lands. l
4 signed the complaint after legal ad-
wee obtained from one u1cOnuected
with the case.
RE DIRECT EXAMINATION.
un answer to Mr.. Hatch). We
/ never asked the consent Of the Ha-
waiian Commercial Co. to our plant
ing any portion of tue common land.
O. Why didn't you think it was
necessary TO get their consent 20
planting? 4. Why? l never for q
moment dreampt OF asking them. l
never asked them. Why should |
ask them; they were using the land.
I supposed I had she same right L
never expected them to ask Us for
our permission; never looked at 1t
shat way. The relations were always
amicable between the two parties,
the Joint owners. When [ say | had
in mind all the time getting and pro
curing a partition, / never insisted
upon it to Col. Spreckels or John
Spreckeie, excepting at those times
that we have talked OF having par
ti6iou. I have never come right
straight and insisted that we must
have it or we would have 70 do
so and 80. { never threatened
to bring them into Court. They
never made any positive refusal to
me TO divide on the contrary. Mr.
ID. always said be was willing tc
make settlement or make division
II don't remember having had any
conversation with Mr.. Williams
when he was manager with regard
to his planting this land. We were
always on good terms and We usec
to meet every day, I don't remember
} his saying anything. / am qultt
} uositive I never had any talk viii
Mr.. Williams. / might have saiC
, something to those men that they
, had planted there, oh, you are plant
ing here again are you, but L neYe
had any talk with Mr. Williams, ant
; T don't remember his having an.
talk with me. I remember having
D conversation with John d. Spreckei
J at Mr.. Twins Office the last time b
} was here, September Of last yeal
7 Mr.. Irwin was present. don't RI
: member saying on that occasion tina
I, we had an agreement about plan
J ing. but / did say TO him that we oil
{ have an understanding about WheT
s the division of the commons shout
II 30. + did not state to him that
X had anv understanding about tE