The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1894-03-23

there was no liability 20 account by The
complainant 20 respond Tor IT'S use Oi
the common property.
After the decree, respondent moved that
ara account be taken for the use OF the
common property since the litigation
began, on the 10th June, 1891. on the
ground that this showed an custer and
an exclusion OF the respondent.
Held. that the decree found no liability 20
account for the whole period 10 its
date. covering the time now mentioned
In the motion and 70 was ysS aGjislicata.
where an accounting between parties is
ordered it covers the damages that
arse pending the litigation up 20 the
date OF the closing OF the account.
On the 18th September, 1893. this
Court. on appeal, held that no custer
had been shown 20 have been made
by the plaintiff corporation Of the
respondent. and therefore the de-
fsndant corporation was not entitled
70 an account OF the profits made by
plaintiff out OF the common estate
And on the 21st September, decree
was signed. stating that the Court
having found as a fact that there has
been no custer by the complainant
OF the respondent IN respect TO any
portion of the land held IN common
by the parties nor any exclusion by
the complainant of the respondent
from said land; and being Of opinion
that the complainant Is not subject
TO be charged IN an accounting for
It's use Of any portion of the land
held IN common by the parties"
ordered, sdjudged and decreed that
the decree Of the Chief Justice be
confirmed and that the Wsikspu
Sugar Company respondent Is not
entitled to recover or to be allowed
any rent or damages for use and oc
eupation by the said complainant of
any portion of the land named IN
their complaint owned by the parties
IN commoe. and Is not entitled to an
account of the profits arising from
such occupation"
On the Ord October, 1893. the re-
spondent moved the Chief Justice as
follows
@And now comes the SAID g. W.
Maefarlane on behalf Of the defend
ant and shows unto this Court that
on the sixteenth day Of June, A D.
1881 the said Waikapu Sugar Com
pany brought against the said Hawai-
ian Commercial and Sugar Company
It's action of eiectment, praying TO be
let into possession OF Its undivided
half OF the premises and damages
for exclusion therefrOm. to which
action the said Hawaiian Commercial
and Sugar Company, besides plea
IN abatement and q disclaimer filed
an answer of general denial, which
said action was terminated by the
Court sustaining said plea
That on the fifth day OF Septem-
Der, A D. 1891, the said Hawaiian |
Commercial and Sugar Company
brought a bill OF complaint against |
the said Waikapu Sugar Company, /
praying for partition OF said prem |
lses, and for an accounting, to which /
said bill the said g. w. Macfarlane, |
defending the same n behalf OF said /
Waikapu Sugar Company, fled an /
answer claiming that the said Wal
kapu Sugar Company had been 1
Illegally excluded by the said Hawai-
ian Commercial and Sugar Company /
from use of the common property
and praying for an accounting there
for TO be ordered. on which said petit
ton and answer the Court found
that such exclusion or custer had
not been shown, and denied to the
said Waikapu Sugar Company the
IN its behalf prayed for
az aforesaid
That from the date Of the fling Of
said action Of ejecsment and OK said
answer OF general denial until the
present time, the said Hawaiian
Commercial and Sugar Company
has continually excluded and ousted
the said Waikspu Sugar Company
from large and very valuable por-
ton OF the common property during
that time exclusively held, used and
cultivated by 1t, the said Hawaiian
Commercial and Sugar Company,
and now refases the request Of the
said G W MacfarlaDe IN behalf Of
the said Wsikspu Sugar Company
for any accounting therefor or any
payment for the use thereof.
Wherefore the said Or. W. Macfar
ane, in behalf Of the said Waikspu
Sugar Company, moves this Court
'or an order directing the said Haw- d
ziian Commercial and Sugar Com
pany TO account 70 the said WsikapU
Sugar Company for the rents and
SfOut5 Oh DBOSS pOfblOBS Ol gbS Ccttf-
non premises under its exclusive use
and occupation since the said SIX
tenth day Of June, A. d. 1891"
On the I4th November, the Chief
Justice decided that no ouster or ez
si1sion Of the respondent by the
bad been shown Is TO
such portion Of the premises owned
N common by the parties as WAS 10
ne occupation Of the complainant
1n Toe 18Th june 1891, (the date Of :
,espondent's suit IN ejectment) and \ :
1eeree was signed on the 2lnd Nov
sraber 10 the same effect, and also