The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-01-04
DECISION BY THE
SUPREME COURT
Case of E. N. Holmes Again t
|. E. Ray Is Won by
the Defendant.

Justice Perry yesterday handed down
a Supreme Court decision, which is con-
Cured in by Chief Justice Frear and
PENDANT in the case of E. N Holmes
against l. E. Ray. The syllabus of the
decision is to the effect that 1.-The com
plainant having failed to prove by pre-
ponderance of the evidence the existence
of certain agreement of partnership
relied upon in the bill of complaint and
essential to the maintenance of the suit
the bill is dismissed
The case was brought before the SUI
preme Court on appeal from the Fourth
District Court, Hilo, which had decided
for the defendant Ray. The complainant
claimed that on March 20, 1899, by oral
agreement the defendant and himself
formed partnership concerning land
situate at Olaa, Puma, Hawaii, and later
on the defendant denied that such
partnership existed, or that it was ever
made He asked that defendant be re-
quired to show the amount of moneys
expended and expenses incurred under
and by virtue of said partnership, and
that the plaintiff be adjudged and de-
creed to be the owner, as the defend
ants partner, of an undivided one-half
interest in and to the Olaa land upon
payment by the plaintiff of one-half of
such sum as the Court found the de-
PENDANT had expended while in the part
nership. The respondent denied in his
answer that such a partnership had been
entered into. The Circuit Judge of the
Fourth Circuit agreed with the defend
ant and dismissed the bill, and the COM
piainant then appealed to the Supreme
Court
The entire dispute occurred over the
transfer Of a right of purchase lease
Tan cd Tar nichj tn
PENDANT Ray, which the latter in turn
disposed of to o. A. Stevens for 800. At
the same time Maroichi entered into a
written agreement with Ray on March
H.. 1881 fer the esnveyapce .toy the latter
of the tract which contained 15S acres
upon obtaining title thereto from the
Government. Ray agreeing to pay the
cost thereof to Maroichi, to wit, 50 per
acre. and $500 additional.
On or about March 20 Ray went to the
complainant and represented that he
could purchase from the Japanese the LIS
acres Of land provided the latter were
able to make the requisite improvements
on lot No. AZ and thus secure the title
to the additional land, and made propo-
sition that the two become partners
with reference to the new land one OF
the elements of the proposition being
that Holmes bear the whole expense o.
Clearing lot At. There was conflict "a
| 10 the other terms of the proposition
out, SO says the Court, cit is undisputed
that, whatever the terms, Holmes declin
| ed the Offer
The Supreme Court says upon the evi
dence 1T cannot find that any agreement
was entered into. The testimony of the
two parties as to whether there was ar
acceptance or a rejection of the propose
made, Is entirely in conflict, says tn
court. There is nothing in the recorC
In6inafa q oh Of ra;t
part of the one any more than on the
part of the other-the Circuit Judge re-
marks that the two stand equally wei
in that respect in the community il
which they live. Their testimony i.
evenly balanced; nor is there anything IL
their subsequent conduct, so far as dis
closed by the evidence, which throws
light on the subject or will justify the
statement that preponderance of the
evidence exists one way or the other
o Creighton for complainant Smith
q Parsons for respondent.