The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1880-05-08
Supreme Court Calendar, April Term, 1880

Continued from the soth Of April. Chief Justice
In the matter Of the Boundaries of waiokams Appeal
from the decision Of the second Judicial Circuit Court ON
an appeal from the Boundary Commissioner Of Maui.
Chief Justice delivered the decision Of the Court dis
He said that the decision Of the circuit Court was
based on testimony relating TO that case aud that the
that division boundaries ran through hsh ponde, was
opinion that an appeal does not lie from the decision Of q
Circuit Court, which has heard an appeal from . Soun.
not ON questions OF fact 1t is within The power Of
the appeal TO a Circuit Court, or, the supreme court n
they appeal to a Circuit Court, no further appeal lies ex-
missed.
Z. Preston for the Appellants; W. L. Holokahih for
Mendonca and II. A. wide1nann VS.. Casper silva. et Al.
the Demurrer in this case was satisfied by the Payment
of the mortgage to Widemann, the Mortgage: that In
respect to costs no special order will be made varying
the usual cause Of business: and ,hat the other matters
involved may abide the result of the bill in equity
Castle ( Hatch for plaintiffs; A s. HartwelI for defen-
Frank Spencer VS.. The Commissioners of Crown LAnda.
Mr.. Justice McCulIy gave the decision Of the Court
herein as follows: In our view there is no equity In the
hin. In response TO an application on the part Of the
lease at a certain increased rental. 70 be paid from the
to pay only his old rate for the years unexpired OF his
lease, during which he was to have paid the increased
on the termination Of the first lease cannot be considered
el.i haT 10 e enfaPce the e eser z = asref ft is 80 evid 4 ta thSt II n INV
land had fallen in value, and the plaintiff had not de-
required him 70 pay the arrears at the increased rate.
and TO take another lease. The parties stand upon the
same ground, and neither Of them can claim the enforce.
ment Of the bargain. Judgment for the defendants.
R. F. Bickerton for the plaintiff; E. Preston for the
defendants
Rachael Lewis, administrative OF ST.. Lewis, deceased,
vs.. the New York Life Insurance Company.-Mr. Hart
well filed a bill Of exceptions which was allowed by the
Chief Justice.
Burns VS.. B-owler.-Motion for new trial. The Chief
Justice says that all the evidence put in on motion for .
new trial appears to be accumulative. and therefore the
motion is refused. Mr.. Hartwell excerpts TO the ruling.
and the court grants him until Tuesday merit. lIh May,
as Of the LIST, TO file his exceptions.
R. F. Bickerton for plaintiff. A. s. HarfEell for
defendant.
Hohnung & Co. VS.. Chung Faa-Exceptions 10 the
ruling of Chief Justice Harris. Mr.. Justice Mccully
gave the decision of the court, concurring with the decf-
sion Of the Chief Justice already given, and affirming
that judgment.
we'll for defendants.
Mr. Hartwell introduced to the court Mr.. BENJAMIN II.
Austin, late of Buffalo, N. Y, and also read a petition on
his behalf for q license 10 practice as an Attorney. Coun-
selIor, Solicitor and Proctor in all the courts OF this
Kingdom. The court having examined Mr. Austin's
credentials, and the same having been found sstis-
factory, IT was ordered that a license be issued to him up
on his taking the usual oath Of ONCE, which was admiDs
istered TO him by the Chief Justice.
There being no further business, the court adjourned
sine die,