The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1859-08-04

ground that testimony before unknown, had come 70
the knowledge of the defendant which wouio ~ )"
probability have changed the nature Of their sero,''.
| This motion was argued at the April term anu "
ne,c trial granted upon payment OF half the COS. az
crucd, the remaining half to abide the result Q = 'n'
new trial.
Plaintiff alleged that he was engaged oy d ..
PENDANT to perform certain work ana iaocr . N'
place at Koolau. and claimed, as there was no
written contract, that he was entitled 70 a qua"''"
meruit.
Defendant denied the engagement altogether, as
sorting that the plaintiff came passenger win n"
from California, and merely resided win MN w
worked to pay for his board and lodging unui ne
could get into some employment, and mrther pieaueu
\ set-of for money paid for DEFENDANTS passage =
am from San Francisco, and further sums paid for
his use and benefit.
The Jury after hearing the evidence, returned a
verdict for the plaintiff of one hundred and four dol
lars, less the set-off of ninety-fve dollars and nifty
cents, virtually a verdict for eight dollars and fifty
cents.
Mr. Harris moved an arrest of judgment until the
costs were taxed ON the ground that the amount OF
the verdict being under the sum recoverable in the
Police Court, the costs of the upper Court ought not
to fall upon the defendant; but the Court ruled that
it could not apply to cases where the PLAINTIFFS de-
mand is reduced by the proving of a set-off not shown
to have been received in payment of the speciflc de-
mand upon which the suit was brought, as In this
case. (The Court however made q rule in regard to
the costs in actions where the amount recovered
should not amounfto 800, which is published in
another part of this paper.)
J. d. Blair for plaintiff.
CSC. Harris for defendant
T. E.. Taulor vs.. G.. l.. Kapeau.-Assumpsit.
Judgment confessed.
c. e. Harris for plaintiff
Louis Lesueur VS.. Capt. owle.-Assumpsit. Set
tied between the parties.
j. Montgomery for plaintiff.
A. u. Bates for defendant
WfHiam Hlle6rand VS.. Peter Young ke6uoka-
lani.-Assumpsit. Action upon a promlssorS note'
Judgment by default
J. ID. Blair for plaintiff.
J. d. Blair VS.. J. yMontgomery.-Assumpsit. On
appeal. Settled between the parties.
r TyUmnn VS.. Thomas Spencer.-Assumpslt.
This n was continued to the October Term. the
plaintiffs attorney having filed a petition for a COM
mission to take the evidence Of certain witnesses In
San Francisco, and said petition having been granted.
J. Montgomery for plaintiff.
Daniel Montgomery VS.. William Hunt ct ais
On appeal. This was a case of rescue by the defend
ants of certain animals from the servants of the
nlaiptiff. while in the act of driving them to the
Mound. for living trespassed upon the plaintiff 8
land.
The case w pretty clearly proved. and the Jury
returned a verdict for the plaintiff of $l5 damages.
J. Montgomery for plaintiff
c. c. Harris for defendant.
j. III. Wood VS.. M. ". Green.-On appeal from
the Police Justice of Honolulu, it was agreed to SUBJ
-. ~ - e. ,La Conrf upnn tho record from the
Police Court, without the intervention of a jury.
This was an action claiming s25 81 for goods sup
piled to F. NJ. Green, son of the defendant, in 1850,
while in employment as a clerk in a mercantile house
in Honolulu, being at the time between 20 and Il
wears of age ; and the question was, whether the
laws in existence in the place of his fathers domicile
were to regulate his majority, or whether he was to
be governed by the ier loci cOntractus.
The Court seemed to be of opinion that +. Nj.
Green was of legal capacity to make a valid and
binding contract in Il this kingdom at the time he pur-
chased the goods from plaintiff, and that a recovery
could have been had against him on such contract.
1t appeared that at the time the plaintiff furnished
the goods to F. NJ. Green the defendant was not
within the kingdom, nor was there any evidence that
he ever had been. The goods were delivered to f.
NJ. Green and charged to him on the plaintiffs books,
and all the circumstances tended to show that the
plaintiff relied solely upon the credit of +. NJ. Green
himself.
The Court was of opinion that the ground upon
which the Judgment of the Police Justice was given
in favor of the debt, was just and sound, and affirmed
his decision accordingly.
4. u. Bates for plaintif.
e. g. Harris for defendant.
The King VS.. Palu.-Larceny of a horse, the
property of j. Meek. stolen from the custody Of K
Mofhtt, Esq, of Kahuku.
The Jury, after hearing the evidence, retired for
half an hour to consider their verdict, after whlch
they found the prisoner guilty.
Sentenced to two years Imprisonment at hard Ia
Der, and a fine of ten dollars.
A. b. Bates for prosecution.
The King VS.. Rau.-Polygamy. N0He prosequi
entered by the District Attorney with leave of the
Court.
The King VS.. Keaonui.-Indicted for murder in
the first degree. The facts are something as follows
The deceased, Makaihuia, who resided at koolau, and
who was suffering from gonorrhoea, sent for the prls-
oner, who is a native doctor, to come and give him
some gunpowder, which it seemed he had been in the
habit of administering for that complaint the pris-
oner went, and he is charged with having given him
a dose of gunpowder, mixed with a poisonous plant
called .auhuhu, which caused his death. The evil
dence was exceedingly long and very conflicting, and
the case lasted four days, during which time the Jury
and witnesses were kept in the custody of the Mar
shall. On the fourth night, at about half past nine,
the Court charged the Jury, who retired to consider
their verdict, and after an absence of one hour they
returned into Court with a verdict of not guilty, and
the prisoner was discharged.
A. b. Bates for the prosecution.
c. c. Harris and J. w. Z. Maikai for prisoner.
Raopua and .Nahua Administrator Of kaleihe-
ana, deceased, vs.. John i.-This was an action of
ejectment TO recover the possession of some land be-
longing to the estate of kaleiheana, deceased. Mr..
Blair having opened his case to the Jury, Mr.. Bates
for the defendant, moved a nonsuit. the Counsel for
the plaintiff having alleged that they brought the
action as administrators, whereas he, defendants
Counsel, took the ground that administrators could
not bring action of e%jectment.
This motion having been argued at great length