The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1893-01-12
ONE MILLION.
THE BIG SUIT AGAIN Be
FORE THE COURTS.

The court re opened at 1913 A. NJ.
Mr.. Hatch closed for the plaintiff.
Referring to the failure of the Wal
kapu Co. to demand possession of
that part of the common used by the
Hawaiian Commercial Co., he claimed
that such demand was necessary. In
all the arguments of counsel there
was an attempt to misrepresent the
position Of his client, or put him in
position which he had not taken. To
state that his client claimed exclusive
title to the part occupied by it was
gross perversion of the record. His
clients bill merely asked that par
tition be made on the basis of the
existing record, 80 far as that might
equitably be done. Tt did not claim
actual title to the part occupied by
it. The bill was for partition, and
asked for an accounting incidentally.
There was no estoppal on the face Of
the bill which could prevent the
Court from taking all the facts into
consideration bearing on the liability
to account. The defendants an
swer alleges that there was refusal
after demand to be let into posses
sion. Was there any evidence to
support that? The Court on we'll
known equitable principle having
taken the case under its Jurisdiction
for any purpose, considers every
thing necessary to an equitable dis
posaI of it. The Hawaiian CONNER
cial Co. in asking for the land ad-
joining its own, relied mainly on the
fact that there was an equitable rea-
son for giving each owner the land |
which joins his own. That was ALL |
The counsel for the defense had |
attempted to make out that there was
a different rule of law for small |
pieces of land and for large. The
Court could not establish any such |
sliding scale; the rule was the same
for all co tenants, whether large own
ers or small. The cultivation of this
land was matter of more public in-
terest than any law suit between the
parties. Even if it were only planted
in guavas for guava jelly it was
matter of public interest. So far as
the triangle fenced in was concerned, /
it was not proved that it was not
farmed by Claus Spreckels for his
private benefit. 1t might have been
for all counsel knew TO the contrary.
No definite demand was ever made
upon the plaintiff. and his possession
was not adverse. Vermont was
State much relied on by defendant,
and yet a Vermont case said that
there were undoubtedly cases where
one cc-tenant need not account to
the other for use, as in the case of
pasture land where there was pasture
enough for both, or for arabic land,
where one party only cultivated his
portion. That was exactly this case.
He was vely sorry that the case
could not have been conducted with
out reference to the supposed
wealth of the parties. Those whom
he represented had been freely
He did not think the law
would be affected by any abuse of
Mr.. Macfarlane, even were he dis
posed to indulge in that style of ora
tory. As matter of fact, the corpo.
ration he represented was nearly
bankrupt. The damages could not
possibly amount to a million dollars,
fifty thousand would be the most the
defendant could claim, and the per-
petual parading of the million in
the newspapers, and elsewhere, ap-
peared as though it were intended to
influence. The Court could not be
Influenced by anything of the kind.
Judge Hartwell objected to the
expression as reflection on counsel.
MIR. Hatch disclaimed any imputa-
ton on counsel.
After some little further discus
sion, the Court rose, after a few
peace offerings had been offered up
BY counsel, at IL ~ A. NJ.