The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1873-04-26
Rulings of Court-Before Halliburton. J
Ii Ms matter Of Ia. rxy,

n ~ "a..r oS EXCEPTIONS.
The defendant objects to the admission OF certain
evidence by the plaintiff On the ground that the
record has been mutla,ed and garbled. citing three
instances wherein by such ~garbliug and mu,ls,ion
his cause would suffer. and on this ground asks that
the evidence be ruled cut; that being false in one
particular the whole is inadmissib,e. The first
instance cited establishes the fact that for the term
/" Coolie the plaintiff has substituted that Of
bonded labor" This court IS of the opinion that
the substitution complained q Is imua,eriAl in It's
nature; that the article TO vhich the terms apply IS
one and the same thing under the statutes Of this
Kingdom; that tie term substituted by the plaintiff,
bonded labor" is used in Difference to the feelings
Of the aborigiDes in contraiistinc,ien to the term.
Coolies" applied to the imported article; that said
substitution Is a mere matter Of taste. For the
reasons given the exception is oyerruled.
As to the construction to be spilled to the words
"It i the belief Of many" sc, sc. The court is Of
the opinion that the construction Of the plaintiff is
consistent ard plausible. The words used are found
in the editorial columns Of the defendants paper and
being in that position custom and usage accept such
matter as endorsed by the editor or publisher; in
other words il IS reasonable TO suppose that the de-
PENDANT shared in the belief expressed, II the
plaintiff has been led into an error by the neglect Of
the defendant, in failing to qualify the expression
excepted to, the defendant cannot be permitted 10
take advantage of his own neglect Permission is
given the defendant to amend his original bill if he
elects 50 TO do; but the exception is not allowed.
The exception based upon the paragraph begin
ming "Now let our readers judge &c, is again
q rnstter for the application of rules Of construction.
The first sentence would imply that an endorsement
or receipt in full was intended in behalf Of the
plaintiff; but that in the case of the " Minister " =
doubt existed as TO satisfaction in full for all demands
to that date, September 4th, 1869. The phrase " so
far as we know - may reasonably be construed 10
imply doubt, but upon the evidence before the court,
in the second sentence of the paragraph alluded TO.
there can be no doubt but that the '' base aud delib-
crate falsehood Z" which had been uttered was then
intended to apply to the denial quoted above
uttered by the Minister. Again, the relations exist
ing at that time between the parties in this cause
and the said Minister. justifes the court in the belief
that the parties, plaintiff and defendant, had a COM
mon cause US against the said Minister. That the
defendant should now seek to reverse the positions of
the plaintiff and Minister, a process known in chess
rs '' castleing,' King and Rock, is not, under exist
ing circumstances, SO very remarkable nor strange;
but courtesy would seem TO demand that it should
only be done with the consent of the plaintiff. This
court, however, cannot allow "castleing" under
any circumstances in a matter so grave and important.
The opinion of the court, given in a former ruling.
that the receipt in question is a good and sufficient
bar, is maintained.
The defendant now proclaims his intention to ex-
tend proceedings in his issue for twelve months, to
which plaintiff takes exception. The court cannot
limit the time SO long rs due diligence is used by the
defendant. The plaintiff having entered upon the
suit the defendant must be allowed time to array his
evidence. HALLIBURTON, j.