The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1876-11-11
Notes of Supreme Court Decisions.

Luka as. POokina; in banco. An action Of as
sumpsit for necessaries supplied the defendants
wife. There was evidence that the defendant aban-
doned his wife and lived in adultery. The defen-
dant's counsel asked the Court TO instruct the jury
to find for the defendant IL the necessaries were fur
nished after the wife lived in adultery, which in
struction was refused. The Court in banco overruled
the exception. Dole for plaintiff, Preston and
McCully for defendant.
Rahukuleionoh eL. al. rs. Raikainahaoie; before
Judd, j. Ejectment. Plea of the Statute Of Limit
atoms. The plaintiffs replied that the defendant
having been administrator Of the estate Of their an
cestor. in 1S49, that he took and held this land as
administrator, or trustee, for the heirs, and therefore
that his possession was not adverse to them, not
withstanding his discharge as administrator in 1866,
but that he held for them, and also that certain pro-
bate proceedings against the administrator to obtain
an account Of the estate interrupted the adverse
holding, if there had been any. The Court by agree.
ment was called to rule, before a jury was called.
whether the plea could be sustained by any evidence,
it being evident that the plaintiffs would have no
case, unless shown to be within the exceptions Of
the statute, as under disabilities. The Court held
that the defendants trusteeship did not continue
over the land after his discharge in 1866, and that
the probate proceedings did not interrupt any subse-
quent adverse holding. On these rulings, the plain
tifs discontinued their case. Jones for plaintiffs,
Hartwell and Dole for defendant.
.Moehonua, Minister Of Interior, Us. Lenehan Ell.
al; in banco. The judgment Of the Police Court,
declaring the bond and license Of the defendants for
the sale of liquor to be forfeited for illegal sales, has
finally been affirmed by the Supreme Court. The
judgment Of the Police Court was given last August.
The defendants appeal to the Supreme Court being
denied, their counsel applied to Judge Harris at
Chambers for q writ Of mandamus to compel the
Police Court to certify up the appeal. On order to
show cause why the writ should not issue. the Police
Justice sent up q record of the case. The argument
was made that the statute and form Of the bond in
such cases, making the bond forfeited, on "proof
being made to the satisfaction Of q common magis-
trate 4" Of violation Of its conditions, not only shut
off an appeal to a jury Gas decided by the Supreme
Court in the Minister Of Interior VS.. Glover, recent
Ivy but shut of all appeals, especially If the grounds
of appeal had already been held by the appellate
court in previous cases TO be bad. The defendants
insisted that they could not be deprived Of O hearing
on the law Of their case before the full Court Of the
highest tribunal, and that if an appeal was not al
the case could be carried up on error, 90 as
10 keep it open still longer. Justice Harris declined
10 issue the writ, to which refusal the defendants
appealed to the Court in banco. The plaintiff then
that the appeal be dismissed on the ground
the refusal to issue q writ Of mandamus was
discretionary and not subject to appeal The defen-
lants argued that the case could not be kept away
the Court in banco; that the Court having adj
burned the October term. could not sit in vacation,
n banco, to determine this appeal. The Court held
hat the appeal on points Of law from the Police
Court and also the appeal from the Judge Of the
Court at Chambers should be allowed, but
hat the judgment Of the Police Court should be
Ifirmed, as no error appeared in it. The Court also
that it had jurisdiction in banco in vacation TO
appeals. w. r. Castle, Attorney General, for
laintif; HartWell for defendants.