The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-07-26

plaintiff took it to another person have more carefully
explained and hen the day that the letter was received
sent Kan Wing Chew back Akana to tell him that he the
plaintiff would take the lease at So and that he wanted
know when the lease would be~ready Akana and Kan Wing
Chew then Heeuhe Akana interpreted for Kan
Wing Chew and told Heehe that the plaintiff would take the
lease at $4,000 of the letter. and
asked him when the plaintiff should and Heeuhe said that
he might Monday. On the Monday following the
plaintiff and Kan Wing Chew Heeluhe and the plaintiff
asked him if he had told Akana and Kan Wing Chew that he
would have the papers ready that day and he replied that he
had and produced the papers and asked him to take them home
and see they right. He did showed them to
Chang Kim who made alteration and the day he
returned Holuhe Wing Chew and notary and
with check for the first half years rent The plaintiff called
Heleluhe attention alteration and the latter replied that
unmportan and all right but said also that the defendant
away and asked them the day The notary
testified that Heeuhe told recopy the lease with the
alteration and told the plaintiff tell Akana to then it, take
to the defendant and if she signed take it back to the
notary and have him take it the defendant and get it
acknowledged On the next day they returned Chang Kim
also with them and plaintiff this time took the half
years god but Heeuhe told them that else
had offered So 700 for the lease and that the defendant had
given him instructions the lease Upon being asked
he had power of attorney sign he replied that he had and
produced it. He declined sign and said that they wished
ant executed revocation of Heeuhes power of attorney
November 49, 1898 Heeuhe died before the hearing and
witness in the case.
This is of unusual difficulty. The foregoing statement
OF the main facts does adequately the that
the testimony gives The transactions in regard to which there
question between Chinese and Hawaans and
only there difference of opinion among the witnesses
to Just what said various occasions but unusually
difficult determine just what intended understood by
what was said.
Heeluhes authority, opinion revoked by the
appointment of Mr. Carter with similar powers To constitute
revocation of power of attorney there must be something
besides the appointment of another attorney to show
intention revoke Hatch Coddingon, 95 o. S. 49, Clain
Lenhein, sc n Y. SOL; AAern Baker, 81 Mimi. 90;
Deuot Qumby II Allen POS; johnson Yo,gs, 80 Wis.
1o7 Heeuhe continued the defendants confidential adviser
after Mr. Carriers appointment He executed leases with
her knowledge few days after that appointment He could
very well act in that way thereafter until nearly the time
of the transaction in question because he absent from the
country during of the intervening period Mr. Carriers
appointment apparently made because of any desire
change attorneys but in order to have attorney who could
act during Heleluhes absence
It unnecessary for Akana Kan Wing Chew have
any formal appointment under the plaintiff Assuming that
Heuhe letter contained oer oral acceptance would
be sufficient under the of frauds and would only be
necessary for the plaintiff send such acceptance He
lube proper way Upon receiving the letter he
took friend and had carefully explained and then sent
the one Kan Wing Chew who had brought it back the
Akana who had it. with the message that he agreed the
and wished know when the lease would be ready
These two Akana and Kan Wing Chew, Immediately went to
Heeuhe who the letter and delivered the message
him and the latter said that the lease would be ready the follow
ing Monday This word taken back to the plaintiff and he
Huhe at the appointed me Monday and found the
papers prepared If the letter oer think that the
plaintiff intended accept tnd sufficiently communicated his
acceptance Heleluhe.
The question of greatest difficulty whether the letter should
construed containing offer 1t conended that it
was friendly letter of advice contemplating most
from the plaintiff There undoubtedly much in the
letter support this view But offer need be made
No L ic