The Hawaiian gazette., 1896-08-07
OPINION OF The COURT, BY
WHITING. ].

The declaration AYERS an agreement
between the plaintiffs and the defendant
Whereby they agree 70 purchase the
lease OF certain government premises
IN Honolulu az public auction, which
the defendant, IN pursuance OF said
agreement, purchased, and thereafter
did Instruct James 4 King. Minister OF
the Interior. 10 execute the lease TO
plaintiffs and defendant according 10
said agreement that thereafter the de-
fer6aaL, contrary 70 said agreement,
and after plaintiffs had pursuant 10 said
agreement been put 10 great expense
and Inconvenience, and plaintiffs being
al al times ready 10 perform all the
conditions Of said agreement upon their
part. wholly refused 10 carry out his
part OF said agreement. and induced the
said James A. King 10 execute lease
o. said premises 70 him said defend
ant The plaintiffs claim damages for
breach Of the alleged agreement
The case was returuabLz al the No
Tsuber term 1881 OF the First Circuit
Court and DEFENDANTS answer was Z
general denial, but II the June term
1855, the defendant amended his answer
IS follows Said defendant, by leave OF
Court amends his answer By adding
thereto the following notice; The de-
te1dzuC gives notice thar among other
tstecses he relies upon the statute Of
frauds
The trial was held al the February
term 1856. and BY direction Of the
Court the Jury returned Z verdict for
The defendant
The Minister OF The Interior duly sd-
vertiSed for sale al public auction Z
lease O. Z government lot on the Es-
pIzuzde in Honolulu and AZ the sale
the auctiCneer, Z clerk OF the Interior
Department. knocked the lease down 10
defendant and made an entry 10 that
effect in 6efe1Gzut'S name alone AZ the
time he, the defendant, being the bid
der
The plaintiffs offered 20 prove by oral
testimony that defendant agreed with
them that defendant would bid for and
purchase The lease Of land IN question.
and that he would purchase such lease
for himself and the plaintiffs, and that
( defendant broke this contract and took
/ the lease il his own name and refuses TO
[ let plaintiffs into Z share and for this
breach they claim damages
The plaintiffs also claim that the al
{ Legged agreement was II the nature
Of Z partnership that defendant agreed
with plaintiffs To purchase the lease and
I that the three should BE- partners IN the
lease, and that such an agreement was
I not within the statute Of frauds and
ueed lot De II writing
I There Is 10 evidence OF any ueu-
Orzndun N writing 70 show the alleged
agreement, and the Court below held
thar the alleged agreement was for the
/ purchase OF sale OF an interest IN lands
and was within the statute OF frauds
I and declined 10 permit the alleged
f agreement 10 BE- proved BY paroI tzs1f-
L uCry-
The Hawaiian statute O. frauds Sec
I 1853 Civil Code Comp Laws. D 9gg}
i provides that 10 action shall be
( brought or maintained II any OF the
( fCII0WIEg cases Fourth uuou
any contract for the sale Of lands. teue
uen-z or heredIEauents- OF az any IN
i LErest II OF concerning than =
Unless the promise contract OF aETee
usEt Upor which such actions shall BE-
bruugh-- OF suue uEuoranduu CT uotE
thereof shall be N writing and be
signed by the party 10 be charged there-
with or By saus person tterEG1r6 By
him IaTf1IEF zE-horiZEd
Il The alleged contract for The breach
CT which the plaintiffs claim damages.
Is clearly Z contract for the sale Of an
interest IN lands and within the =tzrare
a frauds, and 10 action can be uzfn-
tanned b. plaintiffs for the breach
thereof the Eme being Al oral con
rrzet and the plaintiffs falling TO prove
a1F memorandum IN wiring such az
L required by TIE stzturE
Parsons " PhfIan- IA Mass Iag
FfckErt v Durham Idg MazE.- 4fg
Bailey v EswEnwzy- AZ Mass s2T
II The plaintiffs claim 70 have exeEcts.
20 thu refusal q the Court 10 admir- eer-
tain evidence offered By them bur
! these exceptions are not ser ON n the
bin Of exceptions The bilI contains the
following n reference theref1- AT ne
rial the plaintiff to Sustain his case