Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1912-05-03
GENERAL OUST|NG
HOMESTEADERS?



Is slightly different as to fact, being
right of purchase lease. Governor
Frear said he did not know Just what
effect the ruling would have on the
second case
This has been the most important
case of its kind since the annexation
of the Islands, and for a time was the
sot,rre of considerable noIitiroI discuss
sion some holding that Governor E'rcar.
I'm onposIng IIendcrsor,s CLAIM, and tho
nrty.seven otbcr, tim, poro similar I'm
cta.,c,,. 100, ,,,,,e,,I,,,, al ,c,,,o,,,,,,I
inc
NJ. ,o,,.,... ....,... TT. A.. r.,
49,. 80 "''''>.o ',,"' Wv. -
,''', "''S '',' s,e"'..S y" 'o''''S'''" p""-
~, u, ','""S j" 'ne ierr.'o'E n'us' "''Ne
MS ,'oIhe On 'ie '"hu ne ueSres anu
must 90 nus own cultNaung'
The decision SAYS In part:
"A distinction exists between resi-
dencc' and home The occupying Of
house on n certain piece Of land for
the length of time required to obtain
title, without making It home within
the proper meaning of the term, but
for the purpose of merely making
showing to obtain patent to the land,
and with the intention of going to live
elsewhere Immediately upon the eXpir.
alton of that time, does not constitute
compliance with the requirement of
Section 326, X. IT,, to maintain a home
on the premises, for the intention and
good faith inseparably involved in the
idea of the maintenance of home are
not present
or the four points raised against
Henderson, the homesteader, only one
was approved by the Supreme Court
as justifiable action on his part. That
was the question of tree.planting. The
other points were: first, that he had
not made the land his real home; sec
ond. that he had violated the law by
practically assigning his homestead to
the plantation; and third, that he had
not cultivated the land as required by
law.
AS to the maintenance OF home
the syllabus recites:
I'VE do not say that the fact that
the freeholder's place of abode lacked
cooking or bathing facilities, or that
trees were not planted, or that the
place was not improved after It was
''''' 'N''fi'HH VI 'iAu' AhN iiN'll'lh'i
boarded elsewhere, or kept some of
his clothing at another place, or that
he did not sleep every night at his
abode, but often slept elsewhere, or
that he received financial assistance,
would show an absence of good faith
and an intention to make the place
his home. But where. as in the case
at bar, all these things concur, and II
further appears that the freeholder
lived on the lot no longer than he con
sidered absolutely necessary, and then
returned to where he had previously
lived, and 1t is also shown that he
made no attempt to cultivate the land
but Immediately upon taking 1t up
turned the possession for cultivation
over to another, the conclusion is ire
| sistible that the place has not been the
| occupants home within the meaning
of the law. We hold, therefore, that
the condition as to maintaining a
home on the premises has not been
fulfilled by the appellee"
On Rentals.
Concerning the rental Of the home
stead to the plantation, the Court
| says:
u 10 h'N h'NtoodlN w utNlut MltAH-
or the situation constituted the rela.
tiOn Of landlord and tenant between
the parties or whether the plantation
! acquired license coupled with an in.
| terest or some other form of right See
McCandless v. John Ii Estate, II Haw.
| ~, 100. Certain 1t is, however, that
when the appellee for a valuable con.
sideratlon gave to the plantation tho
right to enter upon the land and grow
and harvest crops he transferred to
the plantation, in so far as the limited
nature of his estate permitted, an in
terest in the land which We hold
amounted to an assignment of part
of his interest under the freehold
agreement within the meaning of the
prohibition contained in the agree
ment, and as the assignment was
made without the consent Of the Com
missioner of Public Lands that condi
ton was violated"
Discussing the cultivation of the
land, the Court declares:
THE crops grown must be his crops