The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1899-10-28

sought be patented SHALL of such application
accompanied by onefourt of the purchase price free from
the tpuaons Of such Crown Lease, which SHALL however
main in full force the remainder of the premises described
therein Since the application and patent entire
premises in this the entire premises became free
spuations of the lease and there remainder of the prem
lses as to which the lease could remain in force.
The question: them is whether person who has
MS right and who has obtained patent for the whole of
land covered by his lease under the first part the may
exercise his second time and under the second part the
section We need decide whether may first exercise
his part the section and then under the
part whether he may his right than under
either part he should obtain patent for the whole
200 his first application for opinion he
else his right only long he holds Crown Land lease and
appears this that the applicant has such lease having
terminated upon his obtaining his patent for the whole land
cred by the lease.
The statute does not as contended ON behalf the plaintiff
confer absolute obtain patent upon person holding
lease the date Of the Act irrespective of whether he holds the
lease the date of his application for the patent If that
the holder the date of the Act could obtain patent
though he might have assigned his lease prior his application
for the patent and his assignee the holder of the lease could
obtain paten he could obtain patent though he had
surrendered his lease before his application for the patent
which the applicant has practically done this by accepting
title in fee simple The clearly coners the right upon
only those who hold the date of their application leases
the date of the 1t the first part of the
section: "Any person holding land under Lease 'ny
person who has held land under ase and in the second part
of the section ny such aforesaid whose lease covers
&c. and the language of the section throughout bears this
construction 1t does that having lease of fifty
cultivate and then surrender his lease and
obtain fee simple title for the whole lot and then cultivate
thirty of his land thus obtained and held
and then obtain patent for hundred and fifty
This construction entirely consistent with the decisions in
Webster Luh, 1853 Z. S. 337 and other relied
the plaintiff which held that Sections
nled States Revised Statutes conferred upon soldiers
and others absolute agnabe right acquire additional lands
Similarly, it might be held under that person
to obtain additional land which right would with assign
of the lease But could be held that who did
within the of the had The
statute confers the right upon only those holding land under
leases and who have improved the required of the leased
premises In this the applicant does hold Crown Land
Lease and he has improved the required of land held
under such lease AS basis for his present application he has
shown merely that he has fee simple his right and that
he has improved only the land held although
held the land under easebefore the improvements
and before he made his present application
Judgment is ordered for the defendants
4tto'neyGenera II. r. Cooper for the defendants.