The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1896-06-16

much and II aid not take OF the doll
lar, the mission would have to psy II.
agreed"
4 second conversation with Father
Maxine. vierra's testimony, Father
Maxine told me he was going TO 10
nolulu 10 see the Bishop Of for Rome.
and the matter OF your lease will BE- all
settled on then. and win bring the
lease with me for YOU. told him
wished he would do so. asked him
hew he could make lease down there
when l was not present. He said. I
don't mean that. the lease wiz be made
here. II Is simple understanding:
the matter will he talked over with
the Bishop The lease Is the same as
the other except in price and length of
time, which is twelve or fifteen years,
From this il appears thar there are
seven promises. otal and written. made
st different times during a long period
Of ye2rs and varying in their terms:
First-Father Pouzos, May 50, 1857.
promises ST the expiration of original
lease TO lease the same for twelve years
more IL he tvisrral wishes TO do 1t az
the rental of what the lands will be
worth AZ the time, and provided the
head OF the Catholic Mission approves
Of il.
Second-Ta 1885. Bishop of olha oral
" promises that yierra viii have the
preference OF the lease AT the expiration
OF the lease. to pay rent what it was
worth at the time of expiration of lease.
Thiri-In 1891. Bishop of Obs orally
promises q renewal of lease and thinks
vierra ought to pay SIS. Thinks he can
afford it
Fourth-April Is, 1898. Bishop of
Panopolis promises orally a renewal Of
lease for twelve or fifteen years. not to
pSy to exceed twice what Vierra was
paying. This according TO Vierra's
testimony But the Bishop says in
his testimony that he refused a re-
newal. but told Vierra that he could
hare it as well as anybody else. pro-
vided he would offer the same price as
other people offer.
Fifth-December Is. 1894. letter OF
Bishop OF Panopolis. wherein he states
that he refused a prolongation of lease
and that Vierra asked how much he
would charge for new lease And he
told vierrs thar it was impossible to
TX any And that yierra would have
the privilege to take II at same price
Others would offer for it
Sixth-Father Maxine in his first
CONVERSATION again makes change in
the alleged contract whereby certain
people were not to be disturbed by Vi
ezra in their subtenancy and were TO
pay less rent
! Seventh Father Maxime's second
conversation with vierra: The lease
is 10 be the same as the other except
in price and length OF time, which is
twelve or fifteen years
II is well settled rule that courts of
equity will not specifically enforce a
contract that is not certain in its terms
or capable Of being made certain
Parker V. Cartwright, Haw., $50.
From the different promises or state
ments il viii be easily seen that taking
the evidence most favorable for the
plaintiff and considering both the oral
and written promises. there are at least
two essential elements or terms of the
alleged contract which are not certain
or definite
First-The term, which appears to be
mere renewal Of the lease, that is, for
its term OF i've years; new lease or a
renewal for twelve years; and a new
lease or renewal for twelve or fifteen
years
Second-The rent "As in the original
lease; not TO exceed twice the rental
then paid; at the rental of what the
lands will be worth at the time" ito
pay what il was worth at the time of ex-
piratiOn OF lease" ito pay SIS per
month"; the same price as other peo-
pie offer" that no price was TO be fixed
until expiration of lease
What can The Court select as the pro-
visions of the contract to be enforcedz
II We select any OF the provisions above
set forth. We cannot say that that was
the one agreed on as part of the alleged
contract A court of equity cannot
make contract, nor can il in bill for
specific performance alter it and then
enforce IL
The plaintiff has not proven any con-
tract mutually agreed on and definite
and certain in It's terms II contracts
are not so certain in themselves as TO
enable the Court 20 arrive a. TIE clear
result OF what is meant by all the terms
contained in them. they will not be spe-
eifeally enforced T. would be ineQuita- !
Die to carry contract into effect where
the Court are lett IN doubt as 10 the in /
tention Of the parties; for in such case
the Court might decree what the parties
never intended or contemplated
Boston & Maine R. r '. Babcock,
Cush-, 2zs.
Grace = Denison, ia Mass. Is.
Parker v Cartwright. Hav-, $50.
Conderr '. Condert, 43 y. J. Eq., 400. 1
Hopkins v. Gilman, z Wise, 47s-
AeKibbin V. Brown. IA \. ]. Eq., 13. I.
Lynes = Hayden, Admir-, 11s Mass,
49,
Ii Is claimed that the plaintiff has
made improvements on the properly In h
part performances OF the oral contract,
and that On that ground specific per-
Torrance should be decreed- It is true
that part performance will under some
r1rrT1rr zr>ueaz rzIc ar. r.rof nor,rr, 81 <.~.>