The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1899-09-16
BY JUDGE PERRY
Decision on a Bill for
Specific Performance.
The Case of Makee Sugar Company
Against Tuck Chew Decided in
Favor of Plaintiff.

In the Circuit Court yesterday Judge
Perry handed down his decision in the
case OF the Makee Sugar Company. a
corporation, VS.. Tuck Chew. bill for
specific performance and other relief
as follows:
| Inc decision on the demurrer sufi-
| GENTLY states the case as disclosed nv
| the pleadings then before the court
| Upon the overruling of the demurrer
| respondent filed his answer. wherein
he denies that he ever consented or
| agreed to modify the lease of july |
| 1894, as alleged in the bill or to exc
cute the lease as thus modified or anv
new lease embodying such modifica-
ton. He also denies that he ever in
pursuance of any agreement or other
wise executed modified copy of such
lease.
The questions of law now raised as
10 the jurisdiction and propriety of
granting rellef IN equity, were pre-
Sented and disposed of on the demur
rer. The only issue now before the
court is one of fact. to wit. whether
or not the respondent did agree to ex
ecute modified copy of the lease of
july /, 1894, or, rather, new lease
containing such modification.
On behalf of the complainant three
witnesses, William Blaisden. G. H |
Fairchild and zee Tai, testify posi- |
lively that the respondent. on SEN
TENDER H. 1894, after being charged |
with making sales of rice contrary to |
the provisions of the lease of july | |
1894, agreed, at Blaisdell's request. to |
add 10 the lease new clause prOvid-
ing for forfeiture in case of a further
of hn
OF rice or of any other covenant. and
that upon modified copy of the lease
such new clause being pro-
duced and explained to respondent. re-
Spondent executed the same. and pro-
missed to produce later his original
counterpart OF the same lease for the
Ike mOd1hcatIOn and execution. More
over, the fact remains, uncontradict-
ed and unexplained, that at the trial |
u the action for damages brought by
his respondent against the complain
INT, the respondent himself admitted ~
N the stand that the signature in Chi
leSe characters to the lease of Sep
ember II, 1894, was his signature. al
houSh this admission was followed | |
alter in the day, first by a denial of the II
act by the same witness, and second
y, by the statement by him that he
Guild not swear whether it was his |
lgnature or not. At the trial of this
uit, the respondent denied absolute .
Y the execution of the modified copy
t the lease and the agreement to eX-
cute the other counterpart:p in short,
e denies having any knoN7edge at
ii of the translation. The defense on
he facts is that the modification is a
orgery.
The question is one of the CREDIBLE
y of witnesses. From the evidence
believe and find that the respondent
ld execute the one counterpart of the
lodltled copy of the lease and did \
gree to produce his original of July (
1894, for a like amendment and exc (
ution. [ further find from the evil !
ence that the complainant. relying (
pom respondents said agreement. per- )
)rmed its part thereof, to wit, made I
dvances of goods and money to re- {
oOndent and abstained from seeking ;
ny remedy at law for the breaches of :
1venant committed by the respond s
Mt. In my opinion, complainant is :
ltltled to the specific performance by z
espondent of his agreement to pro- s
Ice his original lease of July l. 1894 ,
II modification and to execute it in ,
S modified form. 2
Decree accordingly <