The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1869-09-25
supreme Court I,ecord.

Again VIC arc compelled to revert to tho farci-
cal proceedings "In Admiralty" before MIR.
Justice WideInann. in the now ridiculously cele-
brated case Of lIazlin W.. Mcdonald. w will
briefly recapitulate, in chronological order, the
doings in Court, in order that our readers may
get some connected ideas of how this wonderful
case stands.
Sept. 4th.-Dccrec made that Respondent pay
Libellant $3.50.
Sept. Sth.-RespOndent discharged by Wide
mann, j.. Final decree having been rendered
in this case, Respondent is discharged. Libellant
gave notice of motion for the 9th that the Court
amend it, Judgment, 50 as to include the costs,
and also for an order that the Respondent be
held in custody until the Judgment for damages
and costs are paid.
Sept. 9th.-RespOndcnt appeared, ready to
argue :bc motion to amend, and Libcllant fled
grounds of motion, which were different from the
notice to Respondent of September 9Th, viz
To correct the decree by adding thereto n judg-
ment for costs in fayo. of Libellant." Also
moves the Court =. To award an execution, against
the Libellant in the nature of Il eopias and Of a
f.. ia. to enforce the decree for the payment Of
damages and costs" Respondent opposed the
motion, 90 because there had been no such judy
ment, and that Respondent had been discharged
under final decree. Because such is the final
process in cases of Admiralty and maritime juris-
diction. That Respondent had no notice of such
notion Continued until September 10th, at
IL O'Clock. Motion argued. Same day, Court
endorses on that motion, let monition issue
that Respondent pay $3.50 within four days"
Sept. l0th.-Court endorses on motion of 9th,
|. -. -..u.fE.l uua..t.,u ...r.I - H.
Mcdonald pay the said amount of $3.50 specified
IN the decree aforesaid, together with the costs of
this monition, within four days" The mont
ton itself contained this command, 81 within four
days, including This day, the date Of This noni-
non." The words which we have italicized,
were NOT in the decree made Sept. 9th or 10th.
Sept. l3th.-Libeiiant notified Respondent of
motion for l4th ut 10 o'clock" that Libellant
had fled n motion before the Hon. H.. \. Wide
mann, First Associate Justice of the Supreme
Court for an attachment or terit of execution in
tine nature Of n ca ga, to enforce the decree for
the payment Of the damages,' &c, said motion,
supported by affidavit, being fled with the Justice
that day.
Sept. l4tb.-Rcspondent excepted to the mo-
milton as not used in Courts of Admiralty, and
could only be had in original process. 1t was
not an Intermediary writ.
1t was not in accordance with the order of the
Court on September 10th. No fractions of q day
are allowed in computations of time; the moni-
ton was premature the time for n monition in
accordance with the decree had not expired ; and
moved to dismiss the proceedings
The Court took time to the 10Th, to decide on
the motion.
Sept. 15th.-The Court did not decide on the
legality of the writ,-whether it was premature
or not, but ordered that a writ of cdpias 0d salts
fdcisndum issue. Respondent gave notice of ex-
ceptions to ruling and of a motion to set it aside.
setting forth order OF September 10th, (thcrc
was no such ordcr)-with the words, - including
this date" which were not in the decree.
Sept. 16th.-Rcspondent gave notice OF motion
for the 18th, at 10 O'Clock, to resciud and set
aside the writ whereby the Respondent was held,
and fled eight written reasons in support of said
motion. Crhcsc will be found in full in our issue
of last week.
The foregoing motion was set for the 18th, but
Judge Widemann went to koolau on that day.
go the whole matter stood over until that officials
return, and on Thursday the 23d, the final argu-
ments were made by counsel and the motion sub
mitted. In this instance, the Judge gave his de-
cision at once, without consuming any time in
80 considerations and overruled the motion.
The substance OF the words used, was as follows
"I have not the slightest doubt as to the power
OF this Court To rescird it's own DEGREES. Inever
considered that the prisoner should be detained
longer than when sufficient cause should be shown
for his discharge The Respondent has failed TO
show sufficient cause to authorize his release. In re-
gard 10 the objections made-other than technical
the Court la. teen particular TO guard the rights Of