The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-12-06
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF
HAWAII
OCTOBER TERM 1901.
IN RE ASSESSMENT OF TAXES, ESTATE OF Der
NICE P. BISHOP.
A1.7EAL FROM TAX APPEAL COURT Honolulu.
SUBMITTED NOVEMBER 49, 1901 g. 1901.
(EG FEAR Co. GALBRArH PERRY, u.

is accepted by the the latter cannot
object on appeal complete in the first
OPINION OF THE COURT FREAR CT
appeal by the Tax Assessor from the assessments
by Tax Appeal Court of two pieces of land belonging
TO the Bishop estate.
The fronting Union Square in Honolulu con-
tanning $3.50 square It's dimensions 80 feet King
street, Richards street. 945 Merchant street. and
1t returned $3OO0O assessed by the
present assessors predecessor in Office $SOOOO admitted by
the present of the fair value of $4,000
and valued by Appeal Court 100000 The
ent was made as of January l. The evidence sub
santiay as follows: fronts three and
and unimproved lot also vacant and unimProved,
away another of the block, the
the town. having about 80 feet frontage Merchant
Alakea sold in june 1901 at the rate OF
1929 square 1t returned for taxation by its former
owner $5.47 square foot There evidence
under which the sale took place One
witness government surveyor testified that in june 1900 he
valued this block for the Superintendent of Pub
lie Works after due eraon he valued the lot
Just referred $444 square foot and the lot in
$3.50 square foot Another surveyor, the superin
and land agent of the question: testified that
$4,000 about $3.50 square foot made
after careful study and that there had been tendency 1900
lowering of values lot in adjoining block,
lot containing about 21 900 square feet
sold July 1885, auction the date of little less than 50
square The Tax Appeal Court state their decision
that lots lots adjoining the lot in question had
and 1926 square foot though do
find this the transcript of the evidence The evidence is
meager which base estimate of the value of the
lot the of the Tax Appeal Court has not the
of jury verdict it is entitled weight
We do find sufficient in this instance for disturbing
the ndin thatc and it Is
of about eleven situated at Pawa
Honolulu with frontage the lower side of King street
between Sheridan street the Waikiki road 1t returned
$780, $3OOOO and valued by the Tax Appeal
$780, The peculiar feature that the tract subject
to lease for forty years rental of only 800 year. the
having twentone and half years yet to There
dispute that the land unincumbered worth
$50 OOO as by Appeal Court But rented
only year, that valued the land subject the
lease only $SOO-pesumaby under the provision of the
statute Civ L. S2O) hat when any real estate house
leased rented the of eight years rental thereof shall
the of real house, unless such
manifestly unfair unjust This eight
year rule discussed in Parker Shdo Haw.
4O7 and Chiffon Shdo Hawr $50. A valuation under
generally 'manesty unfair and unjust when
here property leased years ago smaller rental than
could be obtained Just what the valuation of the land
lords interest in such be- depends principally
length the unexped of the lease and the difference
between the stipulated rental and the market rental value The
and that of the tenants
decreases expiration of the approaches other
things remaining OF course the value of the property
whole may change that the values of both interests may
increase decrease absolutely though the values may change
IN different directions relatively each other Presumably
when the lease made the stipulated rental the
rental value Ii that the value of the land that time
on the eight basis $500 increased to
$4,000 portion of this increase belongs to the landlord
VINO should pay taxes that portion This property tax
not an income tax The Tax Appeal Court by following the
eght year rule practically released from taxation n