The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1900-10-30
Supreme Courts
Decision In
Case.
VALUABLE LAND
IN CITY INVOLVED
Property Adjoining Queens Hos
p;tal or beretan;a
Street.

the we'll known case of Aldrich against |
Swinton will receive the property in
litigation which is situated on the ma
uka side of Beretania street, Waikiki of
the Queens Hospital. BY the decree
w. James Smith, the trustee was de-
clared guilty of fraud in attempting to
secure for himself a good title to the
property. The case has been in the
courts since 1891 and it dragged on
from time to time until many of the
original parties were dead. Mrs. Mar
tina c. Swinton died in 1891 and before
her death she made deed to the prop
erty to Smith, who was her best and
most intimate friend intending him to
hold it in trust for her five nieces and
nephews After her death Smith laid
claim to the land.
The opinion is written by Justice Per-
ry and concurred in by Justice Gal
braith, but dissenting opinion is filed
by j. A. Magoon, who was in place of
Chief Justice Frear who was disquali-
fed The court says in the course of
the opinion which is of considerable
length: I'VE are satisfied that the evil
dence that at the time it was the inten-
ton of Mrs. Swinton to make a last and
final disposition of her property tesla
what she at first desired. The
she had then in mind a. will or a deed
is not perhaps. entirely clear. but the
circumstances of the case and the re-
spondent's own evidence furnish strong
grounds for a believing that a will was
| what she at first desided. The
! evidence goes to show that Smith ad-
vised her against making a will be-
| cause of the cost of proceedings in pro-
| bate and because of the possibility of a
contest by relatives not provided for
in the will.
we believe and find that it was the
desire of Martha 6. Swinton at the time
she asked Smiths assistance in the
drawing up of the necessary nstru-
ment that the whole beneficial owner
ship in the property should pass to hel
five nephews and nieces and that the
instrument to be drawn up should be
but the means of accomplishing thai
object"
! The court holds that Smith. taking
advantage of Mrs. Swinton's grea
trust and confidence in him. fraudulent
to the property for himself, persuaded
her to sign deed which he prepared
and which did not express the trust de
sired by leading her to believe that HI
wouldihold the property subject to tina
trust and that he would carry out he
, desired intention concerning the prop
erty.
Mr.. Magoons opinion holds that n,
trust could be construed to have ex
listed and he would award the properr
to the heirs of Smith
The attorneys in the case were Kin
ney. Ballou e. McClanahan and H. A
Bigelow for the plaintiffs and Robert
son. and Wilder. ". o. Smith and A
Lewis. Jr.. for the defendants
TAX ASSESSOR LOSES.
The Supreme Court in an opinio
handed down yesterday in the case o
r. r. Hind VS.. N. c. Wilfong. Tax AS
SCISSOR, holds that where the VALUATION
placed on property for taxation by tn
. Tax Appeal Court is fair and just a
. appeal by the Tax Assessor cannot lie
Justice Galbraith writes the opinio
Z and 1t is concurred in by Chief Justic
. Frear and Justice Perry 1t was an ap
peal from the Tax Appeal Court Of Ko
: hala, Hawaii by the Tax Assessor G
: the district. The valuation of the Hav
!" plantation at Kohala was returned b
r. 4. Hind at 1923. 351. and the Tax As
/" SCISSOR increased this to $2S7, 500 TIL
& Tax Appeal Court reduced this to s2s5
6 oOO. the same as the valuation for til
Z preceding year.
< 1t appeared that more land had bee
acquired by the plantation. but ais
that this lay at high level and thu
the feasibility of irrigating it was III
certain. 1t was likewise shown tn;
the yield of the plantation per acye ha
decreased.
The appeal of the Tax Assessor
dismissed and the order placing a va
uation on Hawi plantation at 1855 600
affirmed. Kinney, Ballou g. McClan.
han appeared for the plantation an
Lorrin Andrews and c. s. Smith for Il
Tax Assessor.
SUGAR COMPANY DEFEATED.
In the case of the Ookala Sugar Con
p pany against John Wilson, the Supren
/, Court yesterday rendered decision a
=, hrming the Judgment of the Judge
the First Circuit Court for the defen
ant.
The suit was an action Of assurps
TO recover an alleged excess of re-
amounting to s2s75 The defenda
leased the plaintiff the land In the di
trict OF Hamakua Island of Hawaii,
an annual rental of 81 per acre. TT
plaintiff paid eight years rent and tn,
- discovering discrepancy in the acr
age for which it was paying rental al
what seemed the acreage owned |
wilson brought suit to recover u
{, rental paid for this land, about for
acres in all. The defense was that Il
plainti6 having been put in possessi,
Of the land by its landlord was este
ned from denying the latter's tit
thereto and likewise that the land