The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1905-09-13
MANAGER CHURCH
HAS A FULL HOUSE

q have every room in the hotel
fun, l had to move out of my own
quarters in order to accommodate
guests and ! had to turn people away.
No. / am not blowing about it, l am
simply making a plain statement of
fact" thus spoke Manager Fred Church
of the Royal Hawaiian Hotel this
morning. THE Buford people came
along in stream and l owe a deal OF
their patronage to the friends that the
house has made in the Army and
Navy.
Look at this" he added producing
a note signed by Judge Gear and Com
mander Lucien Loung. THAT is the
sort of thing that helps along"
1t was simply a word or two from a
couple Of friends to another friend but
it obviously meant business.
&s:%.3.31H.%E11%9%&%@3@1393%&
delivery by these defendants of the
promissory note in said complaint set
forth And the third ground of de-
murrer is, that said plaintiff hath not,
in and by its said amended complaint,
stated facts sufficient to constitute
cause Of action against these defend
ants.
Counsel for the plaintiff contends in
his BRIEF that this extension of ninety
days was a sufficient consideration of
the note made by the defendants. quot
ing a number of authorities in support
of such contention and says further:
While it is true that there is a differ
ence of amount between the bond and
the note, still il is submitted that this
court cannot say that the ninety days
extension asked for by these defend
ants, and obtained by them, was not
worth to them vastly more than this
difference i'm amount
AS to this latter proposition. the
court does not hesitate to say that such
extension was not worth to the defend
ants anything like this difference in
amount, a difference of nearly one hun
dred per cent, without a showing by
the plaintiff to the contrary. 1t is an
incredible thing that an extension of
three months in the time of paying a
claim should be so valuable to the
parties Of whom such claim is demand
ed as to be worth substantially the full
amount of the principal of the claim
except under extraordinary and most
unusual circumstances.
In all jurisdictions it would be ad-
mitted that forbearance of claim is
no consideration if the claimant knows
his claim to be unfOunded or conceals
material facts relating thereto"
"RecOgniZing this rule as authorita-
tive. the question arises in this case,
first whether the claim made by the
post office inSDeCtOr on the defendants
was a lawful claim, and if not. wheth-
err the inspector knew that it was un-
founded, The bond of the defendants
was for one thousand dollars; they
We're not liable on account of the en-
bezzlement of the principal of the bond
for anything beyond that sum and al
though they We're liable for that. yet I
think the whole claim being entire,
was unfounded and the inspector being
supposedly well acquainted with the
bond, was i'm a position to know and
must have known that II was inbound
ed. His demand therefore ON the de-
PENDANTS for the payment Of this larger
sum was fraudulent in its essence. If
the demand had been for the amount
of the bond. the defendants might have
paid it at once, but their promise as
set forth i'm the note referred to, to pay
the whole amount Of the claim. must
have been made under undue influence
or misapprehens'on Of their legal
rights
c. w. Ashford appeared for defend
ants and J. ]. Dunno for the govern
ment