The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1904-05-10
THE PEARL
HARB0R. SUIT
Judge De Bolt Renders
Judgment Against
Defendants.

UGIGNOdUlS.
Pearl Harbor has been judlcially de-
clared open for commerce and naviga-
| ton Judge De Bolt yesterday render
ed a decision in the suit of Clark &
Castle & Cooke and II. Hackfeld & Co,
corporations. The principal conten-
lions of plaintiffs are upheld, which
are based on contract by defendants
to pay them the subsidy therein men,
toned on the acceptance by the Unit
ed States Of the Pearl Harbor channel.
A. S. Hartwell appeared for plaintiffs;
Kinney, McClanahan & Cooper for de-
PENDANTS. The text of the decision here
follows:
THE DECISION.
The directors, respectively. of the
Eva Plantation Co., Ltd, and the
Oahu Sugar Co., Ltd, having passed
resolutions pledging their companies to
pay to the plaintiffs the sum of $4,000
upon the opening of Pearl Harbor to
commerce by the completion by plain
tiffs and the acceptance by the U. S.
Government of n channel into said
Pearl Harbor 200 feet wide at the bot
tom and 80 feet deep, and the Defend
ants being DESTROYS of securing for
themselves and for the said sugar plan
tatlons the benefits expected to be OBJ
tained by them from the dredging
out and opening for commerce and nav
igaton the said channel. and in con-
sideration that the plaintiffs would bid
for obtain and complete q contract
with the U. s. Government for doing
the said work as aforesaid, the de-
PENDANTS thereupon, in writing, adj
dressed the plaintiffs as follows:
Honolulu, II. T., Feb. 18th. 1901.
"Messrs. Clark & Henery, City.
Dear Sirs: We, the undersigned
agents of the Eva Plantation Co. and
the Oahu Sugar Co.. knowing that the
directors of the above companies have
this day pledged the above companies
to pay you 1000 upon the opening of
Pearl Harbor, by the completion by you
and the acceptance by the United
States Government of a channel into
said Pearl Harbor of 200 TT. wide at the
bottom and 30 IT. deep, do hereby guar
antee said payment as per resolutions
passed. copies of which are in your
possession
yours very truly,
"CASTLE & COOKE, LIMITED,
~. b. ATHERTON, President.
III. HACKELD e CO., LIMITED.
paul ISENBERG, President"
The chief question thus presented is
whether this joint writing, construed
In the light of all the surrounding
facts and circumstances, the purpose
of lis execution and the situation Of the
parties, all Of which deem 1t Is proper
to consider, constitutes mere contract
of guaranty or an original, independ-
ent promise. In my opinion 1t Is not a
mere guaranty, and, while 1t may con-
tain some of the elements of con-
tract of guaranty 1t also contains the
clements of an original and independ-
ent promise. 1t Is apparent that the
defendants expected some benefit to
themselves by reason of the compile
ton of the proposed Improvement to
the channel The consideration Is
equally overwhelmingly, that the
plaintiffs would bid for, obtain and
complete a contract with the United
States Government for doing the nee
essary work" Such being my view of
this phase of the case 1t becomes UNI
necessary to consider other points in
volved in the law of guaranty argued
by counsel for defendants.
Plaintiffs having instituted this ac-
ton to recover the sum of $26. 900 from
the defendants, III. Hackfeld & Co.,
Limited, answered, filing a general de-
NAL. Castle az Cooke, Limited, answer
ed, confessing judgment for and pay
ing into court two-thirds OF the said
sum of $4,000 claimed with interest,
costs and attorneys fees. and also ex-
pressly disclalming a release to any
further extent from its joint obligation
declared on by the plaintiffs.
All the material allegations as set
forth In the complaint having been es-
tablished by competent and satisfac-
tory evidence, | find In favor of the
plaintiffs and against the defendants
Tor the remaining one-thlrd of S26 000
to wit, sS6G6 GO, with interest thereon,
costs and attorneys fees.
Judgment may be entered according
~, j, n, DE BOLT
First Judge,
Honolulu MAY O. 1904