The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-02-14

approximately the f cash value and on the
position that the actual rental usually approximately the
fair rental See PARKER ShGao, 9 Haw But values
have changed, and land valued at higher
figure eight times the rental Therefore, Il If land
leased at present value is assessed on the
rule and other land because because leased years
ago Low rental is assessed full cash value there
unjust discrimination Or (2) such other land assessed by
analogy eight times its fair rental value distinguished
actual rental and not at its full cash value depart from
the plain provisions the statute and with the that real
property general assessed low compared with
personal property 1t may be (1 that owing change values
since of the statute the eihtyear
.lnaney unfair unjust and should be held
apply in the majority Of where the actual
rental the fair rental value the property Should
not the proFise rented real be repealed
altered else the valuations of ohe properly, whether real
PERSONAL be put the level!
The properyon Miller street returned S., 750 The
valued $4,000, and this sustained by the Tax
Appeal Court The lot has frontage of about 63 feet and
depth of about so feet There welbu story and half
house it. The appellant paid 81 000 for the land little
over years before the date the assessment and about
$3.50 $780, for the house The house apparently
more the appellant paid than the price
the contractor under bonds complete it at that
The Deputy Assessor testified that it mast be worth least
$4,000 that the land had increased value and worth
least Ooo but that be safely within the limits he
valued both together $4,000 The appellant seemed to think
that the ul cash value what the lot and hoase cost him.
Irrespective of what cost and irrespective OF ITS
value We regret that there evidence
in this case wholly satisfied that the assessment
was not placed high figure but the evidence before
us do how find that the Tax Appeal Court
erred The appellant was without counsel before the Lax
Appeal Court
findings of the Tax Appeal Court affirmed and the
appeal is dismissed.
T. McCants Ste,oart for appellant.
W. O. Smith for the Assessor
PARTIALLY DISSENTING OPINION OF PERRY J.
concur IN the foregoing opinion relates
to the subject the Miller street property As the latter
the valuation upon evidence should my opinion, be
placed at S. 600
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF
HAWAII
SEPTEMBER TERM 1900 s.
JAMES HoARE a. SAMUEL C. ALLEN.
ExoEprross FROM CIRCUIT CouEr, FrRsr CIRCUIT
SUBMITTED SEPTEMBER 49, DECIDED January % 1901
FsEAR CD. GA1BRA1rH Perry, JJ.
1881 one OF the Associate Justices the Supreme
hearing of the property
of minor to mortgage property
ment of borrowed for the purchase OF
piece adjoining land owned by the minor
repairs the buildings on
executed in pursuance
that authority passed A. who subsequently
condition and the morgaged prem
~ ae sold under power of sale contained
brought action OF eJecent for
claiming under the purchaser at SAID
welas o. 2,
execution guardian OF mortgage
o
property 1881 do not now
power by such guardians under
OF their wards
houta
Circuit Judges
of Probate power TO
mortgagng minors real estate whenever In
appear the best interests OF the
should be exercised only
great
C0JTRT nv II
This action of eiecmen brought to recover certain
and known q and Roberts Row, situate on
King city, and in the possession OF the dee
ant under ownership IN fee. The facts OF the case
undisputed. and may be briefly stated follows:
James Ioare the plaintiff the time minor, was ON the
Of until the of the