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

half of the yearly rental advance that 5o He con-
nues IF Wong Kwa agrees, then will Immediately draw
up the document and sign right away the Monday morning
and acknowledge that day." He expressly states that he
himself will sign and acknowledge the lease Counsel for the
defendant contends that the proper translation cit will be
signed and acknowledged" but The words
are: Gina Wong Kwa, aaa hama koke ae wan i
ka Paapala, kakau noa koke kakahaka Poakah hoo
iao la This bears particularly upon that
Heleuhes idea merely invite offer which should
referred to the defendant before being acted upon Heenhe
wrote definitely having complete authority stating that
the plaintiff if he agreed should have the lease such and
such terms The plaintiff the day back word that
he agreed Heeuhe seemed to consider the communication
settling the matter and acted accordingly by having the papers
ready the following Monday It be conceded
from the terms of the letter and the evidence their sup
posed acceptance the date there much evidence
is of very unsatisfactory nature The words and actions of
the various persons the largely
informal character and instances be interpreted
in several ways. perhaps than usually which
Difference should be paid the opinion of the trial Judge
had the witnesses before him. Some things especially after
supposed offer and acceptance had taken place. indicate
that Heeuhe and Wong Kwa thought that the would
have to be referred to the defendant for approval final action
and that therefore the contract closed And yet these
things may be explained part least other theories The
letter from Heleluhe defendant
of Monday the 17h which contains pointing
in this direction was opinion rightly held nadmssibe
The fact that formal lease contemplated did prevent
the letter and the acceptance of its from constituting
final binding contract the preparing and signing of the lease
being merely in execution of the 1t also that
the formal lease differing from those
forth in the letter. The letter referred the land of Lumaha
that is presumably the whole of that land The lease excepted
acres the and certain Whether similar excep
that in speaking of lease of this land the parties would
have in mind the property subject the exceptions named in
the old leases is whether the Gland of Lumaha'
understood by the parties under the meaning
what described in the lease do not know If
should regard the change modification of the agreement
made the 18th rather than constituting agreement
working abandonment of the old proof that the minds
of the parties had the 18th Apparently question
raised by either party the change Nor is there
thing indicate that either party considered that the agreement
of the 18th abandoned replaced by agreement
Apparently Heleuhe and Wong Kwa understand
ing which each fully believed would be carried out and which
undoubtedly would have been carried but for the higher
offer of The question whether the letter of the 18th
should be regarded offer for this the only memorandum
of evidence that be enforced against the
defendant under the of frauds For the law of the
several points refer the former decision ante 90 On
the whole of the opinion that sufficient has
been shown for reversing the of the Circuit Judge
The decree appealed from is affirmed
Hatch & SiIiman and c. Broaom for the plaintiff
Robertson G Wilder for the defendant
n r. n