The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1894-01-24

The defendants appeal from the de-
cree of Judge Cooper, declaring a
trust and ordering an assignment by
defendants to plaintiff of the lease.
Following is Judge Cooper's deci-
| sion:
"The bill alleges that the defen-
| dants Yong Ahoi and All Wal under
took to procure for the plaintiff
lease of certain tract of land in Ke-
| walo, Pauoa, 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
All Yong and All Wal doing business
under the name Of Ho Fon.
Wherefore the plaintiff prays that
the defendants be declared the trus
tees of such lease and demised pre-
misses for his benefit.
The defendants deny the allega
tons of the bill and further set forth
that the defendant All Yong is q
bona tide holder of the said lease.
The decision Of this case involves
m erely determination of the facts,
the law being beyond dispute. The tes
timony introduced by the defendants
was in direct conflict with that Of the
plaintiff, but I find no difficulty in
determining which of the. witnesses
were telling the truth.
In order to substantiate the testi-
mony of Yong Ahoi I must disbe
lieve the evidence given by Mr..
Booth who testified as to the ad-
missions of both of the defendants,
his evidence being corroborated
by Kawaihoa. Also Alb Hong,
All Kau and the plaintiff who
testified to the payment of the money,
also Mrs. Lydia Piikoi Kamskaia
who says that before she consented
to give the lease. Yong Ahoi told her
that he had made arrangements with
the plaintiff who was in possession CT
the land.
The manner Of the witnesses Yong
Ahoi and All Wal while giving their
evidence was decidedly against them.
The bravado and contempt expressed
by them in their denials of import
ant points, in conjunction with the
mistaken testimony of the witnesses
for the plaintiff, satisfy me that
neither OF them were telling the
truth.
find, therefore, that the defend
ants, Yong Ahoi and All Wal, did un-
dertake to procure the lease for the
plaintiff, and that they received the
sum of $50 with which to make the
first payment As to All Yong, if in
fact he be the person who was pres
ent and testified, he is but the agent
of Yong Ahoi and was fully Uniformed
as to the relations of the parties, and
is not entitled to any protection"
BY THE COURT.
Mr.. Castle, for defendant, urges
upon us that Yong Ahoi, one of the
defendants, is not shown to have any
interest in the lease. This appears
to be true for the lease was made to
All Yong and All Wal partners under
the name of "Ho Fop," and the name
of Yong Ahoi does not appear upon
the lease actually made by the lessor.
But the decree does not undertake to
bind him and from all that appears
he need not have been made a party
except as q co-conspirator with All
Wal in obtaining the lease In fraud
of the plaintiff. But Yong Ahoi had
8 very close connection with defend
ants. In conversation with plaintiff
| and others, Yong Ahoi, after the lease
in question had been obtained, spoke
of it as his own, and offered to lease
the premises to plaintiff for $500 per
| annum.
1t is slso urged by Mr.. Castle tn at
| All Yong Is not shown to have par
ticipated in the transaction, except
| that he became a lessee by signing
the lease with his partner All Wal.
| There is evidence that his name was
inserted In the lease by the direction
| of Yong Ahoi, who is All Wai's
| brother; and it appears to 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 Piikoi Kama
kaia, supposed that the lease was to
be made to him alone, he had All
Yong's name inserted in the lease
| with All Wal In order to conceal his
own share or agency in the transac
ton, intending In some way TO reap
| the benefit of it.
There is another view that can be
taken of All Yong's liability. By his
own admission, he was unfamiliar