The Hawaiian gazette., 1894-01-26

the plaintiff
OPINION OF TIE COURT By JUDD. CO.
The defendants sppeal from the de-
cree of Judge Cooper. declaring 8
trust and ordering an assignment by
defendants to plaintiff Of the Jesse.
Following Is Judge COOper's dee;
sion:
The bill alleges that the defeu-
dsnts Yong Ahoi sud An Wal under
took TO procure for the plaintiff 8
Jesse of q certain tract Of land in Re
wslo, PsuOa. Oahu. and for such pur-
pose the plaintiff paid them eighty
dollars; that the defendants wrong
fully and to the fraud Of the plaintiff
procured such lease in the name OF
An Yong and All Wal doing business
under the name Of Ho Fop.
Wherefore the plaintiff prays cnat
the defendants be declared the trUs-
tees OF such lease and demised pre-
misses for his benefit.
The defendants deny the a!lesa
lions OF the bill and further set forth
that the defendant All Yong i :
tegG re holder OF the said lease.
The decision Of this case luyolyes
merely determination Of the facts,
the lsw being beyond dispute.The ties
timOny introduced By the defendants
was in direct Conflict with thst OF the
plaintiff. but 1 fud no difficulty II
determining which OF the witnesses
were telling the truth.
In order TO substsntIste the testI-
uony Of Yong Ahoi I must dIsbe
lieve the evidence given BY Mr..
Booth who testified IS to the I'D
missions Of both o; the defendants,
his evidence being cOrCoborateI
By hswgiaOa. Also All Hong.
Al Kau and the plaintiff who
testified TO the payment Of the money,
also Mrs. Lydia PIklI hsmaksla
who SAYS that before she consented
to give the lease. Yong Ahoi tod her
that ne had made arrangements with
the plaintiff "L0 vas n possession q
the lard.
The usuuer Of the witnesses Yong
Ahoi and An Wal while giving their
evidence was decidedly against them
The bravado and contempt expressed
By them IN their denisLs Of import
ant points. in conjunction with the
unshakeu testimony q the witnesses
for the plaintiff. satisfy ne that
neither o. them were telling tie
truth.
l find. therefore. that the defend
ants. Yong Ahoi and All Wal. did IN
dsrtske to procure the lease for the
plaintiff. and thst they received the
sum Of $50 with which to make tie
first payment. As 10 All Yong, II IL
fact he be the person who was pres
ert and testified. he Is but the agent
Of Yong Ahoi and was fully informed
as to the relations Of the parties, and
Is not entitled 10 any protection
81 TIE COURT
Mr.. Castle. for defendant. urges
upon Us that Yong AbOi. one OF the
defendants. Is not shown TO have any
interest IN the lease This appears
70 be true fO- the lezse was usie 10
Al Yong and Al Wal partners under
the name Of -.H0 For" and the name
Of Yong Ahoi does not appear upon
the lease actually made by the lessor.
But the decree does not undertake 70
bind him and from sll that appears
he need no: have been made party
except as G co-couspirator with All
Wal IN obtaining the lease IN fraud
Of the plaintiff But Yong Ahoi mad
a very close connection with defend
ants In conversation with plaintiff
and others. Yong Ahoi. after the lease
in question had Deen obtained, spoke
of Il a. his OWL. and offered to lease
the premises to plaintiff for $500 per
snuum-
It IS also urged By Mr.. Castle that
All Yong Is not shown to have par
ticipated II the transaction, except
that he became lessee by signing
the lease with his partner Al Wal
There Is evidence that his name was
inserted II the lease By the direction
OF Yong Ahoi, who Is Al Waiis
brother; and It sppears 10 Us from
the evidence that though Yong Ahoi
was the main actor IN this business
with the plaintiff and the lessor, SO
that the lessor, Lydia Pukoi Kama
kais, supposed that the lease was to
be made 70 him alone, he had An
Youg's name inserted II the lease
with All Wal IN order to conceal his
own share or agency IN the trsnsac
ton, intending II some way to reap
the benefit Of II
There Is another view that can be
AnLnn a Il Xrro,- EahIlitr b his