The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1911-12-05
INTENTION NOT
POINT At ISSUE
HOmesteaders' Counsel Files
Brief In KaIwlh Third Test
Land Cases.

AMhu NpSttht 70 AuN ANNNttAaoNsl
HILo, December l.--Attoruey Harry
Irwin, counsel for tho Kaiwiki Third
homesteaders, has fled brief contain-
ing score Of pages in which he in
great detail and with much care dwells
on the various phases Ct the case which
was recently heard before Judge Par
sons.
Several interesting points are made
bearing directly on the most disputed
questions in regard to hOmesteading in
general. Thus in regard to tho main
tenahce of a home on the premises in
question the brief says:
.The court ruled during tho progress
Of the trial that tho question of good
faith, or intent, in taking up the home
stead, was not an issue in this casei
while the respondent relies upon this
ruling, he submits that, under our stat
utes the question of intent, or good
faith, is not, either by the statutes, OF
the agreement, made q necessary ingre'
dient of full compliance with the condi
tions of the same. A great many cases
were cited by petitioners counsel from
the land decisions upon the question Of
intent and good faith; counsel evident
~ overlooked the fact that the question
of intent or good faith is made an es.
sential element under the United States
land laws s,'2 4a. ~
"Neither by the statutes, the agree
ment itself, nor by any regulation OF
the land department of the Territory
of Hawaii is the question off, in
tent even remotely referred TO. 1t
seems therefore that IL the homBteadeI
has, In fact, maintained HIS home on the
premises Ior the required period, ire
speetive of what his intention was in SO
doing, he is entitled TO his patent al
far as this condition is concerned"
Plantation Interest.
Irwin in his brief also refers to the
alleged interest in the homestead lands
by the plantation, saying in part as fol
lows:
ssThe evidence in this regard shows
that the Hakalau Plantation Company
was eultivating the land for and at the
request Of the homeBteRders under whai
might be called cropping contract
whereby the plantation WAS to furnish
all labor, tools, seed and other materia
and the homesteader was TO fur
nish the land, and that tho home
steader was to receive FIVE dollars
per acre per year as his guaran
teed share of the crop. This seems tc
be nothing more than an ordinary crop
ping contract. The plantation never
was in possession of the land: tho evi
dence upon this point is clear. At 9
time when counsel for the plaintiff, upon
his cross,examination of the respondent
Henderson, was apparently seeking to
establish by indirect questions basil
for argument to the effect that the plan
tatiOn had possession, the court put tht
direct question to the witness, "Dit
you put the plantation into possession Of
the landsf' and tho answer was No
/ asked them to cultivate the cane fol-
me.u
''Is there any Indication from thes,
facts of sails, transfer or mortgage
of landsf AS counsel for the petitioner
seemed somewhat undecided, at the time
of argument, rs to what this planting
agreement should be called, il would
probably not be profitable tn discuss
this question until counsel 3 brief upoI
this point has been fled"