The Hawaiian gazette., 1869-09-29

But. etc, and that the be- has
no sense in the sentence Who it is that
has occasion to find fault about the re-
mission Of costs-which lies entirely in
the discretion of the Courts not ap-
parent. 1t will be obsers 81 lat he reDaits
theui-does not charge them to anybody.
Anyone who reads over the several articles
which have been furnished by the indie
pendent Press" will see that some indi-
vidnals are making jest of it, or using it
for stalking-horse, whilst the Editor has
not that knowledge of the profession
Of which he assumes to speak, or acumen,
to see that he is making himself ridiculous.
For instance. some one-it is not difficult
to guess who-having seen the willingness
to publish the emanations of some one
else's spleen on the 4th, furnishes, on the
llth, the horrible BLUNDER' Of giving
the inadequate damages of $3.50. Now
who is the judge of what is adequate or
inadequate? The Plaintiff had chosen to
pursue the Respondent in the Police
Court. and had procured a judgment of 20
days Imprisonment against him. at hard
labor. Under these circumstances, it is
not usual to give what are called viDdictive
damages. He had already been punished
at the instance of the injured man.
Nor is it usual for reasonable Judge to
give damages such as a Respondent wonld
probably be unable to pay, for should lie
do so, the judgment would defeat itself
Second, that he furnished to his own Clerk
draft of the decree which he was to give
in pencil and interlined Next, that it
(the judgment,) should have been given in
open Court. so that Libellant's Proctor
could have taken the necessary steps to
enforce the judgment, by an order for
arrest. Well, the Judge appointed an
hour to give his decision caused the Ii
bellant's Proctor to be notified to attend
but he did not do so-and the Judge
went on to make known his decision to
Respondent. Probably, Mr.. Editor, you
are of opinion that it would be the reg
uIar" thing for the Judge to seek out both
Counsel, and ascertain when it would be
convenient for both gentlemen to attend
on him.
Indeed, one is confirmed in the belief
that this is the learned Editors view of
what the practice ought to be, for he in
forms us, on the 18th, in Record
which he makes up. that Respondent gave
notice of Motion on the 10th, which was
set for hearing on the 18th, but the Judge
went to Koolau. SET by whom? Not
by the Judge, evidently, for he went
to Koolau. Now, in point OF fact,
before the illumination which is now
being shed on the practice Of Courts
of Judicature, by the " Independent it
has been supposed that the Judge was the
person who set down any motion for a
hearing. Judge Widemann had never
heard of any intention to make such mo-
ton until he was in his saddle to 90 for
ride, and having made no appointment at
all for the 18th, had the presumption to
take a ride to Koolau. When asked for
the first time, to set day for hearing, on
the 2lst, he expressed willingness to
hear it on the 22nd. but at the request
Of the mover, fixed it on the 23rd.
"Some people think our remarks on late
judicial Irregularities unnecessary and Sc
we're"
Well, they must have queer ideas of
what constitutes severity. The remarks
nay have the effect to make some I'M
reflective persons think there is some
hing wrong, but to one having any
experience in the matters to which they
-efer, they only appear ridiculous. Take
he sentence which heads the article
lbove quoted: "The Hazlin VS.. Nc
Donald case still drags its slow
ength along" Anyone would think
hat when judgment was given and
,apidS was issued to satisfy the judgment,
he case was about done. If any one shall
AXE the trouble to read down the record"
Is published in the same issue, it would be
most difficult to see "what is the matter"
is far as Judge Widemann is concerned.
The comments are sufficiently absurd. We
ire informed, by this paper, that on Sept.
9Th, Judge w. discharged respondents.
But in the issue of Sept. llth, the same
authority says that Justice Hartwell dis
.harged him; and such is the truth.
Again, see the following brilliant COM
nent: 7ie
"Sept. Sth.-Libellant gave notice of mo-
ion for the 9th that the Court amend its judg-
nept, so rs to include the costs, and also for
N order that the respondent be held in Gus
ody until the Judgment for damages and
osts are paid"
Sept. 9th.-Respondent appeared, ready
o argue the motion to amend, and libellant
lied grounds of motion, which were different
rom the notice to respondent of Sept. sth,
liz TO correct the decree by adding thereto
judgment for costs in favor of libellant'
Also moves the Court sto award an execution
Igainst the ibellant in the nature of a eapids
md of il. ia. to enforce the decree for the
,ayment of damages and COSTS"
Mark the difference between AMEND
IS JUDGMENT to include costs, and CORRECT