Polynesian. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu], Hawaii) 1844-1864, 1857-08-01
TI)e l)olnueslau;
Published weekly at Honolulu, Oahu, HI
ARIES GORDON HOPKINS. EDITOR.
SUPREME COURT---JnIy Term.

9CHrEF JUSTICE ALLEN Presiding.
IN Monday the 9th. the case of William Eel
!. i rs Wm. c. Parke, was called up for re- trial
5 me DELAY occurred in impanneling a jury, from
il fact that so many jurors had already sat on the
at previous trials, while others were sick of the
.syailing influenza. But by the addition of three
sp,men brought in by Sheriff Swinton (the Mar
j ! being defendent in the suit) the jury was at
: 9TH filed and the case proceeded. The reading
depositionS and the introduction of other testi-
fnv occupied the whole of Monday and Tuesday.
rng the progress of the trial, several points not
Fvously suggested were raised by counsel and
kided by the Court. Among these were the fol-
Hng:
he defendant objected to the plaintiffs being al
ed to prove any acts of his previous to the 22nd
October, 1853, the plaintiffs having alleged in
Dir declaration that on that day, they being in
session of the ship ''Nile,' the trover by the de-
liant took place. The Court sustained the OBJ
Jon and limited the plaintiffs accordingly, in the
! oduetion of their proofs.
The plaintiffs objected to the reading of George
ji6ert'S testimony, on the ground that he, by
1 attorney in fact, VIM. Bailey, being the vendor
8 ZEN, his testimony or declarations made subse-
Eat TO the transfer of the property, and tending
si,parage or break down their title, could not be
{ red. The Court, through Justice Robertson,
=
B. 1T having decided that the testimony of Gilbert
! znot be excluded on the ground first taken by
sel for plaintiffs, viz: on the score of interest
now object to the introduction Of certain parts
lis testimony as being inadmissible under the
j Of law which excludes the declarations of a
J dor. made subsequently to the sale, tending to
gak down or disparage the title of the vendee.
are OF opinion that the rule cannot be extended
! be exclusion of Gilbert's testimony touching the
ued authority Of Bailey, when that authority is
RontrOversy between third parties; Gilbert him
not being party to the suit. Before we can
Ind the rule to the exclusion of Gilbert's testi-
! y we must assume the authority of Bailey to
syey the Nile as Gilbert's attorney to be in
utabe, which would be assuming the very point
ontroVersy. We understand the rule to extend
AZ as to exclude the subsequent declarations of
ey, ne being the party who made the convey
+ to the plaintiffs; and we think the rule would
wise extend to the exclusion of some portions Of
ertS testimony, had he executed the bills of
n person. But the proximate question here
rs to be- not as to the validity of the title which
IN Gilbert, and capable OF being transferred to
plaintiffs, but as to the authority Of Bailey to
f the conveyances in the character he assumed
t'orney for Gilbert. That question being in con-
! eTSy between third parties, we think Gilbert's
kmony Is admissible to show that Bailey had
n tact, the authority he assumed to have.
! rs OF law are inclined to admit witnesses, but
lions to their credibility will have due consid-
! On and weight with the jury. Estoppels are at
mes viewed with jealousy
Pc defendant having proposed to introduce in evil
letter from VIM. Bailey to Mr. Rose, first officer
te Nlle," and also to read some portions of Gil
testimony, for the purpose of showing that Bailey
liade declarations to those parties tending to show
tne plaintiffs had net acquired bona Jide title to
MP Plaintiffs objected under the above ruling of
curt, TO the proof of such declarations of Bailey,
subsequent to the transfer, and the Court sustain
/ he objection
ne Plaintiffs then objected to the reading of certain
parts Of Glbert's testimony tending to show that
'On'eyances TO plaintiffs although absolute their
were IN fact given in the nature Of a mortgage or
conditional sale only. The objection was taken
/ the ground that parol testimony could not be re-
.ed 10 contradict, vary, or add to the terms of
Ten instrument. The Court held, that this not be-
suit between the parties TO the instrument, but
cen third persons, the rule contendeG for by plain
uio not apply, as such third person if precluded
proving the truth, however contradictory to the
eu statements Of others, might be prejudiced by
A'e'eSsness or fraud of the parties to the instru
gaant proposed to take from the files and produce
uence, power of attorney dated the 9Th Of Sep
er, 1898, given by plaintiffs to VIM. Bailey to au-
* nm to act for them as ships husband of the
I winch power of attorney plaintiffs had made
~ Oh their case ON the former trial of the cause.
44Sht proposed to introduce it now that he might