The Hawaiian gazette., 1912-01-05


sold, transferred or mortgaged this
land OF offered or agreed TO sell OF dis
pose of 1t and at what pricof
A Queer Contract.
Specifically, the written contract
between the plantation and homestead
ers is IN evidence. Counsel objects in
his brief, as he did during the argu-
ment, that the Territory had some din.
Guilty as well as hesitation in stating
exactly to what genus or species this
written contract belongs. IL is sub
mitted by the Territory that this con-
tract was drawn for the express pur-
pose Of concealing, as far as possible,
its real character. The homesteader be-
ing party to this contract, his counsel
might properly have ventured a guess
as to its character. He has now sug-
gested that it might be called crop.
ping contract, which is the one thing
it obviously is not, as we shall endeavor
to show later on.
ga brief analysis of the written con-
tract and the request which accompan-
led it might at first suggest that this
was an ordinary contract of sale of
present and future crops for period
of four years by the homesteader as
planter. 1t states that the homestead
en- IS engaged in cultivating sugar cane
, on his lot. 1T is to be noted that Hen
, derson s cash freehold agreement, dated
! July IS, 1907, was received by him
July 20, 1907, and that this contract
was made July "a, 1907, FIVE days be-
: fore Henderson received his agreement
5 from the government) 1t reeites not
that someone is cultivating the land for
the homesteader but that he is cult
waiting the land, showing that one of the
contracting parties at least had in mind
the statutory requirement in this re-
spect.
q "The first portion consists of a pre-
! liminary agreement Of present sale of
the cane at price to be ascertained,
y which agreement would operate to pass
. title to the present and future crops.
, Then come elaborate provisions for ad-
vances by the plantation to the home
! steader to assist him in his cultivation
). and provisions securing the plantation
q for such advances, in terms common to
!. mortgages. Then a provision is insert
q ed giving the company full power to
enter into possession of the land and
q harvest the cane and replant the same
:, Then come other elaborate provisions
n common to cane planting agreements in
this Territory purporting to regulate
!. the scale of prices to be paid by the
u plantation to the homesteader for the
,s cane. The homesteader then agrees tC
" cut, weigh, and deliver at the fumes
!, the cane grown on his homestead anc
a to pay the cost of all labor for weigh
-, ing, and also covenants that che viii
:, cultivate the cane, and that if he doe
! not, the plantation may enter into thu
- possession of said premises and do al
e the necessary work, charging thu
- homesteader for the labor and materia
= and crediting him with the can,
i, weighed.
a. Plantation Really in Charge.
u Throughout the entire written con
g. tract, the apparent intention is that tn
homesteader shall at least attempt t,
cultivate his own homestead, not tina
/, the plantation should do so. Only il
~ case the homesteader became unable o
70 failed later ON to do the cultivatin,
y himself was the plantation to take pos
:, session, apparently. But along witt
y this contract came the written reques
10 dated the same day, and, from the evi
l., dence, apparently signed at the sam
y time, stating that the homesteader i
~ at present unable to cultivate all hi
u lot, and requesting the plantation t
u furnish him with men and mules to d
Is so and promising to pay for the sam
IN lon completion of harvesting of m
n crop of cane, showing that at the tim
le of signing the contract, it was not cor
I'd templated by either party that tn
homesteader should do the cultivatinf
Henderson testified at the hearin
that whether before or after the sigI
t. ing of the contract and request, he wa
n, not quite sure at first, Che later state
t. that it must have been afterward fC
e. otherwise he thinks he would not hav
tn signed the written contract) he mad
ut another and verbal agreement with til
err plantation, into which his eouns,
as states the written agreement and T,
ct quest were merged. This verbal agre,
is ment was, it appears from the evidenc
mt made on the same day and apparent
au at the same time with the others. u
by der this merger the plantation, {
I'M Henderson put it, agreed to pay hi
er five dollars per acre per year and WI
to do all the work, exercise all the So
ID, ervsion as to how, when and where II
Ia cane should be planted, cultivated, CT
lS, OF milled. The homesteader's sole i
on terest, as he himself stated, lay in &c
TO ting his FIVE dollars per acre per yes
ed He also testified that he was to get th
Eve dollars whether the plantation c
10. any cane that year, whether the emit
nei crop proved failure, or whether
i've deed any cane was planted at all by 4
az plantation. Henderson stated that
nm. had received no money from the pla
'ha tation, but had, he thinks, been credit
an on the plantation books with abo
nm. $500 10 date which would be five d.
an lars per acre for twenty-five acres (
tho four Vears from July pa 1907
,hs July "a, 1911 He stated also that I
~, same contract Is still In force. He al
'"s testified that be had not the remote
w. idea how much cane had been at a
0F all times cut from bis h0meste
since be acquired his freehold ayr
ment that be did not know how mu
fertilizer, N any, had been used or n
Ky much d cost that be ala not kn
,tp ehai The labor or any ~ y cost n
10Y be- did not knoH hos much sugar v
Iesi made ffom the cane aT how much