The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1878-07-20
HARRIS, C. j.; JrDD AND McCuLLY, j. j.
Opinion of the Court By Harris, c. j.

HARRIS, C. j.; JUDD AND McCuLLY, j. j.
Opinion of the Court by Harris, c. j.
This is an action based upon a complaint il
the following form
CIV. H. Stone, of Kau, of the Island of Ha.
waii, one of the Hawaiian Islands, the said plain,
tiff, claims of A. Hutchinson, of said Kau, the
said defendant, the sum of 5000 for damage:
resulting to him, the said plaintiff, for injury
done by the defendant to the reputation, charac-
ter. and feelings of the plaintiff, in that the de-
PENDANT continuing and maliciously intending to
iDjure the plaintiff in his good name, fame, and
credit, and to bring him into public scandal,
infamy, and disgrace, and to cause him to be
arrested and held in custody and thereby TO SO
Cypress and injure him heretofore, to-wit, on or
about the 22d day of March, A. d. 1873, went
before c. \. Akau, the District Judge of Kau
aforesaid, and then and there falsely, malicious
ly, and without any reasonable or probable cause
whatsoever, charged the plaintiff on his oath
with having committed the ofiense of malicious
injury by taking the shipping papers of the
labOrers of j. Mott & Co., a firm doing business
in the SAID Kau, and by instructing the said
laborers that if the defendant came, they should
not 90 to work, and that in consequence thereof
they refused to 60 to work; and upon such charge
the defendant maliciously and without any
reasonable or probable cause whatsoever caused
and procured the said Judge to make and grant
his warrant, under his hand, for the apprehend-
ing of the plaintiff and for bringing him before
the said Judge to be dealt with according to the
law for the said supposed offence; and the defend
ant, by virtue of the said warrant. a~fterward, to
wit, on the ODD day of March, 1877, or there
abouts, and in the said Kau, unjustly and
maliciOusly, and without any reasonable or
probable cause whatsoever, caused and procured
the plaintiff to be arrested and held to bail, and
on the following day to be conveyed in custody
before the said Judge in the said Kau, and then
and there, the defendant being present, renewed
the said charge against the plaintiff, with the
further charge that the said j. Mott 81 Co. were
damaged by the said malicious injury TO the
amount of over 81 900. To which charge and
complaint the plaintiff pleaded not guilty.
Whereupon the defendant, through his attorney,
requested the Judge aforesaid to discharge the
plaintiff, on condition that he would deposit the
SAID shipping papers with the Judge aforesaid;
which condition the plaintiff submitted to, and
gave the said shipping papers to the Judge, who
thereupon caused him to be discharged out of
custody; and the defendant hath not further
prosecuted the said complaint, but hath aban-
dOned the same, and permitted it to be discon-
tinued for want of prosecution thereof, whereby
the said complaint is fully ended and determined,
to-wit, on the said Oath day of March, 1877.
And the plaintiff AYERS that the defendant thereby
abused the process of law to the damage of the
plaintiff as aforesaid, with the object of extorting
AOl1 IT'LL Tx Sdlu cuIppluS pdpClc, "HlCn htIC
lawfully in his possession as the agent and attor-
ney of the said j. Mott q Co. Now the plaintiff
says that he was altogether innocent of the said
charge, and that by means of the defendants
said malicious charge and complaint he suffered
arrest and detention in custody for a part of two
days, and also great ignominy and reproach in
contraventiOn of his private rights under the
laws"
At the trial it was moved by the defendant that
a nOn-suit be granted or a verdict ordered for the
defendant, because that the prosecution, the sub
ject of this complaint, was not determined by due
process Of law-that is to say, by the judgment
of the Magistrate or verdict of the jury and judy
ment consequent thereon, but was withdrawn on
terms assented to by the plaintiff in this action.
The answer made by the plaintiff was, they
would not insist on Il verdict for malicious prose-
cution, but for malicious arrest, whereby the
process of the Magistrates Court was abused to
obtain private ends.
The motion of the defendant was overruled
pro t0rna, and upon that the defendant alleges
exceptions, and upon those exceptions the case is
before US.
1t was agreed by tile bill of exceptions that all
the testimony taken at the trial, as contained in
the notes Of the clerk, which are full, should be
read and used at this hearing as part of the bill
of exceptions.
The bill Of exceptions reads as follows "Be
it remembered, that the above entitled action
came on for trial at this January term of said
SOulG C4O SulC vi Ol II 1OlD
day Of January, a. D.. 1878.
Il. During the trial the defendant was called
and the question was asked him, How much he
was worth? which question the Court ruled
might not be put. The Court permitted the
question to be asked of the defendant, Whether
he could respond to Il judgment of SIS 900 with
out distress? which question the defendants
counsel excepted to. But the question being put,
the defendant answered, : Yes, L could" But
when instructing the jury, the Court instructed
them that the wealth of the defendant must be
disregarded, and the question was, what injury
the plaintiff had suffered, and not what the de-
PENDANT could pay.
-. During the trial, after evidence of the
plaintiff had been put in, counsel for the defend
ant moved for a no~n-suit, or that a verdict should
be ordered for the defendant, because the COM
plant was for malicious prosecution, SO charged;
defendant claims that action purportcd to be for
a prosecution which was not determined by a
judgment of the Magistrate. The prosecution
was not determined by a judgment of the Magis-
trate. The prosecution was not determined by
due process of law, but was withdrawn by the
prosecutor on terms agreed to by the plaintiff in
this Court. The evidence was OF false imprison-
ment, and there was 20 evidence of malicious
prosecution. The Court overruled the motion
pro lorna. To this ruling the defendant ex-
cepted.
80. After verdict, counsel for the defendant
excepted to the verdict as excessive and contrary to
lLC ldH IL JIG e'IueuCe, anu HOW move CndC the
verdict be set aside because excessive and contrary
to law and evidence, there being no evidence of
actual damage"
By the testimony it appeared that the papers
by Stone, as the property of Mott & Co.,
were really the property of the defendant in this
action, and that the defendant was entitled to the
services of the persons whom it was alleged that
Stone dissuaded from serving him, the defendant
being the assignee of Mott & Co.
Mr.. Charles Spencer testified that the plaintiff
came to his house about midnight and said that
be wished to 60 to Honolulu, and was going to
stop MIR. Hutchinson from getting the men if he
could; and that he thought he could do so, and
was going to kona, with the intention of getting
On board the British war vessel Fdntome, bound
to Honolulu, and that he would try to get the
aborers from Hutchinson that he (the witness)
advised Stone to give up the papers, or he would ]
get INTO trouble. And the witness Spencer far
testified that he met Mr.. Hutchinson at the
beach on his arrival from Honolulu, and told him
IF the intentions of the plaintiff towards him.
The hrst exception is fully covered by the recent
y decided case of Kaleleonalani VS.. j. Mott Smith
md others, trustees, where the Court held that {