The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1893-01-12
FOR A MILLION.
Contest Between Corporations
Over the Waikapu
Commons.
Conclusion Of the Readings and Plead
insS in the Supreme Court.
Conclusion of the Readings and plea(
WEDNESDAY, Jan. IL, 1898.
Afternoon Session.

Mr. Hatch closed for the plaintiff.
Referring to the failure of the Wal
kapu Co. to demand possession of
that part of the coL.non 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 per-
version of the record. His clients
bill merely asked that partition be
made on the basis of the existing
record, 50 far as that might equita-
bly, be done. 1t 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 estoppel 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 a 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
posal of it. The Hawaiian CONNER
cial Co., in asking for the land ad-
joining it's 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 at
tempted 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
owners or small. The cultivation of
this land was matter of more pub
lie interest than any lawsuit between
the parties. Even if it were only
planted in guavas for guava jelly it
was a matter of public interest. So
far as the triangle fenced in was con-
cerned, it was not proved that it was
not farmed by Claus Spreckels for
his private benefit. 1t might have
Deen for all counsel knew to the
contrary. No definite demand was
ever made upon the plaintiff, and
nis possession was not adverse. Ver-
mont was a State much relied on by
defendant, and yet Vermont case
said that there were undoubtedly
cases where one co-tenant need not
account to the other for use, as in
che 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 very 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
abused. He did not think the law
would be affected by an abuse of
Mr.. Macfarlane, ev. were he dis
posed to indulge in that style of ora
| tory. AS matter of fact, the cor
poration he represented was nearly
bankrupt. The damages could not
possibly amount to million dollars,
fifty thousand would be the most
the defendant could claim, and the
perpetual 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.
Mr.. Hartwell objected to the ex-
preston as a reflection on counsel.
Mr.. Hatch disclaimed any imputa-
tion on counsel.
After some further discussion, the
Court rose at ll:22 a. IN.
Il f 4.