The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1900-01-13

ICHd T. TdhGu, law. AS
But assuming that the plaintiff introduce evidence show
that the defendant i in possession. Is clear that such evil
dence Sing Chong Co. introduced this case up to
the time when the motion dismiss them made 1t Is
true that there evidence tending show that Akana
acted with the knowledge of the cecs in way to Indicate that
he controlled the possession of the premises paid the rent
and acted he controlled the manager and operating the
rice plantation and in actual occupation thereof And well
settled that for the purposes eccmcnt summary proceed
ngs of this person. be possession need not be per
onay occupant of the premises that it sufficient if the
premises subject his will dominion Mortgages NAV
be in possession through morgagors acting for them See Har
risOn Marks, Iaw But there is no evidence in the
plaintiff that Akana a member of Sing Chong & Co.
represented them any way Consequently if evidence
necessary the motion dismiss the them should
have been granted But when it denied Sing Chong &
Co. did rest but proceeded introduce evidence for the
defense and showed by their witnesses that Akana was
member of their company This cured the error if there was
LicnG T. Pahau, supra.
Defendants moved also the close of plaintiffs case for
Judgment the ground the time the surrender of the
premises demanded the plaintiff did not offer to return TO the
defendants part of the paid in advance for months on
the first day of July previous namely part proportional the
portion of the six months exp the date of the demand of
possession This motion ovcrrucd and the defendants ex
cepted 1t eonended that by eccn retain the rent for the
entire half year including part then unexpred the plaintiff
be deemed have waived her right enforce forfeiture
for any breach committed up that time But the absence of
statute provision the contrary not appor
tionabe time 1t is regarded as earned from dav 70
day. but entire debt payable rent days as whole or
not at all according the circumstances If the tenancy were
determined between two days through of the land
lord and the rent payable the end period the land
lord would be entitled any for that period In this
the rent payable advance day the period
and the tenancy determined if through the fault of the
tenants The lessor would be entitled to recover the whole of
after the enforcement of the forfeiture she had not pre-
vousy received it Suth Dam rs. Having previously re-
ceved it, she under obligation tender back portion of
It as condition of enforcing the forfeiture.
Exceptions taken the courts refusal to give several
requested instructions the that the acceptance of the rent
on July 1885, operated waiver known breaches up
to that time and also thereafter in far change occurred
thereafter The gave the first part this instruction but
refused the latter part 1t conended that the breaches
if occurred before the acceptance of the on July
1895 and that thereafter change place. the fences for
instance being merely allowed remain the state of unrepa
IN which they before that date and the
right of way being merely allowed continue But the cove
in question continuing covenants and where there are
continuing breaches of such covenants the acceptance of rent
operates waiver only up the time of acceptance and
does preclude the lessor from taking advantage of breaches
allowed continue thereafter Taylor Id & Ten Sec 5OO
HenrqHe 4. Paris, 10 TIaw 4OS.
The third of the covenants for the breach of which these pro-
ceegs brought that the should the
restricted right of twonch flow of water" &C. The plaintiff
contended that the defendants shut the water The court
ructed the jury in effect that the defendants would be liable
only in the water shut off them their by
their permission suerance and would not be liable if it
shut off by strangers without the knowledge connivance
agement of the defendants and there evil
dence to who shut off the WATER if it shut off at ALL the
plaintiff does rely upon breach of this covenant This
leaves the covenants to fences and right of be
sidered.
Defendants contend that the plaintiff gave them time in which
to repair tho fences and road and that repairs made
after the plaintiff entered This contention made under excep
tons the refusal Of the give certain requested nstuc
tons the effect that the plaintiff gave such time led the de