The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1903-06-16

Judge De Bolt gave an order to set
aside the summons in the damage suit
of HUI Yong against Bishop 4 Co.,
bankers for false arrest.
AMICABLE SUIT.
A submission of agreed facts has been
entered in the Supreme Court, entitled
Oahu Railway & Land Company VS..
Eva Plantation Company and Kahuku
Plantation Company.
Fact No. 1 is that Benjamin f. Dill
! lingham holder of the lease from
James Campbell of the Kahuku and
Honolulu lands on this island, execut-
! ed lease to VIM. II. Castle of GER
! tain portions of HONOLULU. and n lease
to Jas. b. Castle of certain portions
of Kahuku. Thereafter Dillingham;
conveyed all of his interest in the Ho-
nouliuli lease to the o. II. & l.. Co., and
| VIM. r. Castle conveyed all of his in
terest In the same lease to the Eva
Plantation Co., and Jas. b. Castle con-
veyed all of his interest in the Kahuku
lease to the Kahuku Plantation Co.
Fact No. 2 is that the two planta-
ton companies named are owners of
sugar plantation on the premises de-
| missed to them respectively, while the
railway company uses a portion of the
, Honolulu land as cattle panch and
has sublet other portions to various
persons and corporations.
Fact No. 3 has it that the Hawaiian
Government has assessed and collected
taxes as follows relative to the original
honolulu lease: To James Campbell
and his estate after him, SO, 200 a year
from 1898 to 1902, which taxes have been
repaid to Campbell or the trustees of
his estate by the o. r. & L. Co. under
a covenant of the lessee respecting
taxes in the original lease; to the o.
r. & L. Co., $4,000 for 1898, $1,000 for
1899. $500 for 1900, $4,000 for 1901,
s2,OO4.O5 for 1902, which taxes the com
pany claims to have paid under duress
of law and to prevent tax sale of the
premises and to preserve it's leasehold
interest from forfeiture; to Eva and
Kahuku plantation companies various
sums in which the value of the land for
cane growing purposes was considered |
Fact No. is that Eva and Kahuku
plantation companies have always ad-
mitted their liability to pay their due
proportion Of the realty taxes assessed J
against the Campbell properties in !
question and paid by the o. r. &. L. |
Co.. but they both deny that they are
liable by any covenant in their leases |
to pay any part or share of the amount |
assessed against that company as it's
leasehold interest, and upon demand
by the o. r. & l.. Co. have refused to
pay the same or any part thereof.
The question submitted to the court
Is, whether by virtue of the provisions
and covenants in the three leases first
mentioned, the Eva and Kahuku plan
tation companies are liable to the Oahu
Railway G. Land Co. for any proportion
or share of the taxes paid by that COM
pany upon it's leasehold interest.
NEW MURDER TRIAL
BY unanimous opinion o. the Supreme |
Court, written by Justice Galbraith, the
verdict of murder, which was followed
by sentence Of death, against Yoshika-
wa Dengiro rendered before Judge
Hardy at Lihue is set aside and new
trial ordered. The defendant killed his
foster father by shooting him repeated /
ly, and the widow as the chief witness
represented the homicide as quite I'M |
provoked. On the other hand. the de-
a strong self-defensive case. In charg-
ing the jury the court summed up the |
evidence for the prosecution but ignor- |
ed that for the defense. Justice Gal |
braith concludes review of the trial
in these words:
1.-The one testified for the Territory |
and the other for the defense Their
evidence was conflicting to a degree.
If the jury believed the testimony Of
the mother the defendant was guilty OF
the crime charged and If they believed
his story he was not guilty. The de-
PENDANT was on trial for his life. He
had n right to demand that his evil
dence with that for the Territory
should be submitted to the jury under
proper instructions on the law without
undue prominence being given to any
part of 1t. This right was denied to
him and on this account we cannot say
that the defendant had what everyone