The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1893-01-11

Srty, as well as from the WnOIo- L mere
was no doubt about the law of that
case The Waikapu Co. was ever
ready to account for every dollar it
had received, and it only asked the
Hawaiian Commercial Co. to try to
remember the Golden Rule.
The Hon. Mr.. Thurston said the
ground had been gone over so fully
that he would simply attempt to en-
phasize some Of the salient points.
The fact that the plaintiff claimed
under an agreement, shifted the
burden of proof on the custer. The
plaintiff admitted that lie was hold
ing exclusively, so thut it was no
longer necessary to prove that he had
ousted the defendant. The question
for the Court was whether the plain.
tiff had proved his agreement. If he
failed to prove that, then he was
holding wrongfully on his own plead
lngs. SO far as these proceedings
are concerned, the plaintiff had
claimed title to 5000 acres of cane
land, from which he had taken 81
100000 worth of sugar. The claim
was one which required pretty strong
evidence, which the plaintiff had fail
ed to produce. Counsel read Mr..
Spreckels' evidence on this point.)
He had had the impudence to come
into Court with the fimsiest kind of
evidence, and try to base title on
it. Il poor ksnaka had come in
with it, he would have been shown
the door with a decision about six
lines long. But the great sugar king,
Claus Spreckels, as he boosted him
self to be, had brought it up and the
decision below had vested the title
in him = not the absolute title
but so far as the purposes of this
suit were concerned. MIR. Spreckels
called MIR. Cornwell to corroborate
his testimony, but instead of doing
so the latter fatty contradicted him.
The evidence showed that none but
MIR. Spreckels had ever heard of this
alleged agreement, and Mr.. Spreck
els said himself he didn't know when
or where, the agreement was made,
or by whom it was written. During
all the negotiations for years, moth
ing was heard of this agreement,
until it came up in Court. Yet the
agreement was the basis of the
plaintiffs claim It was the first chap
ter OF the case and the Court could
never get down to the question of
custer at all. On the evidence and
the pleadings the Court must base
its decision and these showed that
the Hawaiian Commercial Company
w "a
to the question of custer, it made a
difference whether it was claimed
by the person excluding the other,
Or by the one excluded. In the first
case the tenure must be shown to be
open, hostile exclusive adverse,
under claim of right. But SO far
as the rights of the person ousted are
concerned, it is sufficient for him to
show that he is excluded simply.
He does not need to show that he
made great fuss about it. The
fable of the lion and E5op he be-
lieved was written especially for this
case, just like the prophecies in the
Bible. The speaker here read the
following fable:
"The lion and several other beasts
entered into an alliance offensive and
defensive, and were to live very soci
ably together in the forest. One
day, having made a sort of an excur-
sion by way of hunting, they took a
very fine, large, fat deer, which was
divided into four parts; there hap
pening to be then present his males.
ty the lion, and only three others.
After the division was made, and the
parts were set out, his majesty adj
vancing forward some steps, and
pointing to one Of the shares, was
pleased to declare himself after the
following manner: This I seize and
take possession of as my right, which
devolves to me, as / am descended by
true, ineal, hereditary succession
from the royal family of Lion: that
pointing to the seconD 1 claim by, 1
| think, no unreasonable demand; con-
sidering that all the engagements
you have with the enemy turn chiefly
upon my courage and conduct; and
you very we'll know, that wars are too
expensive to be carried on without
proper supplies. Then (nodding his
head towards the third) that 1 shall
take by virtue of my prerogative; to
which, 1 make no question, but so
dutiful and loyal a people will pay
all the Difference and regard that I
can desire. Now, as for the remain
ing part, the necessity of our present
affairs is SO very urgent, our stock SO
low, and our credit SO impaired and
weakened, that I must insist upon
your granting that, without any hest
tation or demur; and hereof fail not
at your peril"
The Spreckels Co. had done
just like the lion. 1t had not taken
the whole deer at once, but piece by
piece. In this case the defendant
did not need to go out daily and pro-
claim his title. His title did not rest
upon his proclaiming it, but was
given him by the law. He bought
it and paid hard coin for it. More
over he continually moved for
settlement and satisfaction of his
claim. AS to the question whether
proof Of custer was necessary in order
to establish claim for damages.
Inc case In 80 Ia, az, taxes tne
ground that the tenant who has not
been ousted but who has simply not
been in possession is entitled to a
share in the profits. The Court was
not yet bound by the Judiciary Act
to adopt the common law. The Court
in the Robinson Will case had aban-
doned the common law, and had re-
fused to adopt the rule in Shelley's
| casa hecansa II Was not common