The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1896-06-15
OPINION OF THE COURT,
BY WHITING, j.

the Circuit Judge, Fourth Circuit, re-
fusing specific performance Of an al
legged contract.
The plaintiff was in occupation of GER
tain premises in Hilo, Hawaii, as a
lessee of the Roman Catholic Mission.
under a written lease dated June 1st
1885, for five years, with a privilege OF
renewal for five years more, which eX-
pired May 31st 1895. The plaintiff sues
for specific performance of an alleged
agreement for a renewal Of the lease.
The bill is so constructed and con-
tains so much matter which is mere
surplusage, and is so confused in the
statement of facts, that the Court finds
great difficulty in ascertaining from the
bill itself what contract the plaintiff
relies upon.
In the 7th section of the bill, plaintiff
alleges as follows:
That on May 80, 1887, the Bishop Of
Olba, by his agent, Rev. Charles Pouzot,
agreed in writing to execute new
lease, which written agreement was
condition precedent to improvements
that had to be put on said real estate in
said lease, that at the expiration of the
lease then held by Vierra the same
would be renewed to him at a monthly
rental not to exceed twice what he was
paying under the lease of June 1, 1885.
That before the expiration of this
lease, the defendant, Bishop Gulstan
Successor of Bishop of Olba, deceasedD /,
personally ratified the promises made
by Agent Pouzot that the said lease
should be so renewed to your orator if
he wished.
In the 18th section of the bill plaintiff
alleges:
THAT Bishop Gulstan in writing no.
titled Vierra that he might have a re-
newaI of said lease if he wished it."
But plaintiff does not set forth this
writing.
In the 18th section:
That Bishop Gulstan, in writing and
orally by himself and through his
agents, agreed to give new lease.
The plaintiff does not set forth the
agreements, oral or written, except as
alleged in the 9TH section.
And the plaintiff, relying upon these
alleged agreements, says that he was
induced to make and did make perma-
nent improvements at large expendi-
ture of money. And claims that they
were in part performance of said alleged
agreements of renewal of lease. And
also claims damages.
The defendant Very took a lease in
June, 1895, of these premises from the
co-defendant, Bishop GulStan, and
plaintiff alleges that it was in fraud of
his rights to a renewal of the lease.
Various points were argued at the
hearing by both parties, among which
the questions first to he considered are
whether any contract of renewal of the
original lease or any contract for new
lease was made, and if so, was such con-
tract sufficiently definite and certain in
it's terms that equity can enforce the
specific performance of it.
The evidence offered was conflicting, |
and without considering the admissi- !
biIity of oral evidence to make or vary |
the terms of a written agreement, or |
whether an oral contract within the |
statute of frauds can be allowed to be |
proven to uphold the allegations of the
bill, we find the following as most ia
vOrable for the plaintiff:
The Bishop of Panopolis is the head !
of the Roman Catholic Church in Ha-
waii, and has full control over its prop
erty within the islands, and the right |
to lease the same. That he is the sue
cessor of the late Bishop of OIba ode
Ceased), who had the same powers and
rights. The principal residence of the
Bishop is in Honolulu.
On June ISL, 1000, Cn6 rev. FdCn6r
Chas. Pouzot (now lately deceased), at
Hilo, in the Island of Hawaii, acting on
behalf of the Bishop of Olba and his
in office, made the original
lease to the plaintiff.
1. On May 80, 1887, Father Pouzot
wrote to Vierra:
Il hereby certify that l have promised
to Mr.. Joseph Vierra, at the expirations
of the leases now from the Catholic Mis-
sion now in HilO, to lease the same for
twelve (12) years more if he wishes to
do it at the rental of what the said lands
will be worth at the time, and provided
the head of the Catholic Mission ap-
proves Of it.
''Hilo, May 80, 1887.
CHARLES POUZOT, c. Priest"
2. Vierra testified that he had con- {
versatiOn with the Bishop of Olba at
the Bishops residence in Honolulu. in ]
1888, where he called to see the Bishop t
about this business, and said: Il had a {
written promise from Father Charles '
Tor renewal of the lease. He asked for I
how long. I said for twelve years He T
asked. What is the trouble. for there is I
quite a long time for lease to run c
-et% l said | intended to make some
alterations in the place and if it was all c
light that I could get the lease. He t
said l would have the preference of I
ease at the expiration of the lease I e
leld. 1 asked how much would I have Z
o pay. He said he would not tell, but
hat Father Charles letter was plain c
enough that I was to pay what it was il
worth at time of expiration of lease. il
1t that time the Bishop did not give t
ny indication Of the limit of the price
o be pafd-not at that time" e
8. A second conversation with Bishop c.
Il Olba was had in 1891. Vierra tes- o
fled: Bishop said L should have a re-
eWal of the lease at the expiration of