The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1879-07-19
Supreme Court of the Hawaiian Islands,
July Term, A. D. 1879.

Present on the bench, Chief Justice Harris, and Judd
and McCully, j. J.
His E1ceilency E Preston. Attorney General, for the
Crown.
HAWAIIAN JURY-cRIMINAL CASES.
The King VS.. Keliihanaiwi Tried by
Hawaiian Jury, verdict Of guilty, g dissenting). J
Davidson for defendant.
9th-The King VS.. Kaneelua-Polygamy. Prisoner on
being arraigned pleaded guilty and was thereupon SEN
fenced to pay a fine of $40 and costs, and be imprisoned
at hard labor for o months.
The King We. Kamahalaau-Larceny of Kerosene. Tried
by q Hawaiian Jury, who returned a verdict of not guilty.
% dissenting. A s Hartwell for defendant.
1Oth-MalaiIua vs.. ] w OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES Of
Makalens, deceased. Appeal from decision of Chief
Justice Harris, sitting as Intermediary Judge. New
~Trial-Tried by a native jury, who returned a verdict
for the plaintiff, g dissenting. IL NAH for plaintiff,
Mr. Hatch for defendant.
11th[ S Keaunui, ct al. We. Ii Polka. ct al.-Ejectnent.
Tried by q Hawaiian Jury who brought in a unanimous
verdict for the plaintiffs of one half the land, the defen-
dsnt to have the other half, costs to be equally divided.
Castle & Hatch for plaintiffs, E Preston for defendants.
12th-Kahiko and others, vs.. Uha k)-Ejeetment. Jury
waived. The Court upon the evidence adduced ordered
judgment to be entered for the defendant. J L Kaulukou
for plaintiffs, A s Hartwell for defendant.
Mikala We. Romano Auhsi-Libel for divorce on the
ground of adultery. Decree of divorce granted. j L
Kaulukou for Hbellant.
Keonians (k) VS.. Kahele (w)-Libel for divorce on the
ground Of desertion and adultery. Decree Of divorce
granted. Holokshih for libellant.
u a NeWcOInDe We. lbaDellh NeWcOlnDc-lIDcl Tor
divorce on the ground Of desertion and adultery. The
Court on the evidence adduced granted decree Of divorce.
Eliza Lopez vs.. Christiano L~opez-Lfbel for divorce on
the ground of Ill treatment. The Court after hearing
the evidence. granted decree of divorce. RI Bickerton
for libellant.
The King We. Eeliihanaiwi Davis-Motion In arrest of
Judgment argued by Mr. Davidson and the Attorney Gen.
eral Mr. Preston. and the Court took the matter into con-
sideration.
14th-The King vs.. John Brown-Indicted for murder.
The uria0ppr having no counsel the TOurf amounted M
Bickerton to defend him; plea not guilty. Tried by a
foreign jury. Verdict guilty e dIssenting) with a re-
quest to the Court to recommen him TO mercy.
15th-T AksnaliiIii (Chinese) vs. Lorrin Andrews
Action on the case for breach of contract. Tried by q
foreign jury who returned a verdict for the plaintiff,
(none dissenting. of $500 damages. Exceptions noted. A
8 HartwelI for plaintiff. W o Smith and Castle & Hatch
for defendant.
E B Thomas vs.. J T C~hayter-Assunpsi for $225, for
work and labor done and performed. Tried by a foreign
jury who returned a unanimous verdict for the plaintiff,
in the sum of f176.S7. Exceptions noted. a 8 Hartwell
for plaintiff. r F Bickerton for defendant.
16th-The King vs.. George Kavanaugh, Thos McGifin
and VIM C-hapman-Larceny of 1857. Mr. Chapman came
in and withdrew his plea Of not guilty, and pleaded
guilty. and was remanded for sentence. Kayana1gh and
MeGifin were tried by a foreign jury, who returned a
verdict OF guilty of larceny in the first de-
gree. Kavanangh was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment
at hard labor. and to pay a fine Of 800 and costs s17.55h;
Thomas McGifhn was sentenced to imprisonment at hard
labor for 2 years. and a fine of 800 and costs $17.55h;
william Chapman was sentenced to be imprisoned at
hard labor for IL years, and to pay a fine of 800 and
costs So. %. r F Bickerton for defendants.
17th-L Andrews vs.. Akanaiilli-Action on the case
for breach Of contract. After impsnneling a jury and
to argue the question as to whether this suit
the one decided on the 18th inst. were not identical.
the Judgment In that case be pleaded in bar to this
action; the plaintiff took a non-suit. w o Smith and
Castle & Hatch for plaintiff, A S Hartwel for defendant.
Robert Lishman vs.. Henry Giles-Action on the case.
Tried by a foreign jury, who returned a unanimous ver-
for the plaintiff in the sum Of $4,000. Executions to
the vsrdict are noted. Castle & Hatch for plaiIhf, j M