The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1911-12-26
FILED IN
HOMESTEAD CASES
rdlory Sets Forth Evidence
Of Alleged Intention 10
Deiraud.
tMaII sreeIal 10 rhe AdverlI.et.l

tMaii Special to The Adverliset.)
H1Lo. December es.-The briefs Of
the Territory In tho famous Kaiwiki
homestead cases have been submitted
by Deputy Attorney General Smith.
The one in the case Of Henderson Is
particularly long and detailed, GOV.
ering forty.six typewrittch pages.
The brief enters into tho various
phases Of the homestead question in
general as we'll MS covering facts con.
corning merely the case at hand. Thus
the question in regard to the number
of trees growing ON tho lot, regarding
which there was great divergence in
the testimony is covered in detail, and
the following conclusion is reached.
cit is the Territory's contention
that, even assuming that Henderson
could count and rely upon his trees
growing in the gulch, yet he has not
the requisite number or anywhere near
the requisite number of growing trees,
and this irrespective of their location, ;"
The greatest stress is, however,
placed on the agreements enteEed into
between the plantation and the home
steader for the cultivation Of the lot.
5 After dwelling for some pages on the
written contracts, the brief goes on as
r follows;
Henderson's Contract
ii "Throughout the entire written con-
, tract, the apparent intention is that
/. tho homesteader shall at least attempt
to cultivate his own homestead, not
that the plantation should do SO. Only
in case the homesteader became un-
! eble or failed later on to do the cult
waiting himself was the plantation to
take possession, apparently But along
I with this contract came the written re-
J. guest dated the same day, aud, from
0 the evidence, apparently signed at the
Q same time, stating that the homestead
0 er is at present unable to cultivate al
!, his lot, and requesting the plantation
: TO furnish him with men and mules ia
l. do so and promising TO pay for the
same on completion of harvesting Of
my crop of cane, showing that at the
time Of signing the contract 1t was moi
= contemplated by either party that the
: homesteader should do the cultivating
= Henderson testified at the hearing
!, that whether before or after the sign
: ing of the contract and request, he wat
not quite sure at first Che later stated
. that it must have been afterwards fol
otherwise he thinks he would not have
J, signed the written eontract), he made
: another and verbal agreement with tn,
. plantation, into which his counse
: states the written agreement and re
y quest were merged. This verbal agree
Il ment was, it appears from the evidence
made ON the same day and apparentl.
:. at the same time with the others. I'm
y der this merger the plantation, n
y Henderson put it, agreed to pay him s.
per acre per year and was to do al
tho work, exercise all the supervision
o as to how, when and where the can
d should be planted, cultivated, cut o
Is milled.
l.. "The homesteader, 3 sole interest, a
It he himsoif stated, lay in getting his 81
per acre per year, He also testified
mat he was TO get this So whether tn
70 plantation cut any cane that year
whether the entire crop proved fail
10 ure, or whether indeed any cane, wa
= planted at all by the plantation. Hen
10 derson stated that he had received n
n money from the plantation, but had, h
n. thinks, been credited on the plantatio
"a books with about $500 to date, whic
" would be SO per acre for the four year
,e from July "a, 1907, to July "a, I91i
n He stated also that the same contrac
II is still in force.
lie He also testified that he had no
the remotest idea how much cane ha
Of been at any or at all times cut frOr
IN his homestead since he acquired hi
Is freehold agreement; that he did no
az know how much fertilizer, if any, ha
le been used or how much it cost; that h
,e did not know what the labor or an
ig of it cost; that he did not know no,
"a much sugar was made from the cane O
d how much it was worth; in short, tina
he did not know any of the detail
~ whatsoever connected with the cultiyi
I'd ton beyond the fact that by his agret
Ia. menL he was to receive this regula
Nv stipend, no matter what happened, an
re- that he thinks this stipend has bee
q. credited to him ON the plantatic
tv books
n. Gin short, the plantation has SOM
or how acquired full control over all I'll
at planted area which includes all but I'll
n house lot and the gulch sides. = d. -,
m KeyhoIo Putty Evidence.
Many pages are also devoted to II
question o. TO whether Henderson
residence claim is good. In this col
- nection the testimony Of the warrior
" witnessed il feviewed, including that Z
Osorio, with regard to the plugging I'll
- Henderson house keyhOle with putt,
bo which made somewhat Of a sensatio
at the time Of the hearing RegaTt
no ing this the brief says;
se' ''It Is In no way disprOven by II
In. fact that Henderson, witnesses thr'
he years later claim that they we're alb
'a, TO find In the lock nothing but the r
mains Of mad-wasp nests. OsoriO hin
be- self stated that he dug out all no e0ul
en- get,
In at Is the Territory = eontsBtion tbs
he every Circumstance, without q sing
Of exception, points Inevitably 20 the col
le elusion that this man. says the hrie
ITO - when he went 10 the place 10 beg