The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1881-07-16

being satisfied from the evidence adduced that
the respondent had been guilty Of adultery
granted the divorce.
Pahulama W. vs.. Kalii *. In this case
the husband was charged with desertion. Dir.
W. L. Holokahik appeared for the libellant.
Her case was proved, and divorce granted.
Kawelo (k) vs.. Hariata w. Mr.. W. II.
Holokahiki for the Hbellant. Hariata was
charged with deserving her husband, and the
charge being sustained by the evidence, a decree
was granted.
Ema W. rs. Hahane Ck). The ground of
this suit was adultery, which was proved. De
cree granted. Mr.. ]. L. Kaulukou appeared for
Ema.
Monday, July 18th.
The Civil cases before Hawaiian juries were
commenced and continued on the following day.
We shall give our report of these next week.
Thursday, 18th July.
CRIMINAL cAsEs-FoRETGS JURY.
The King vs. Kong Sing. The prisoner was
charged with burglary and was undefended.
After the evidence against him had been taken,
he made a statement in defence TO the effect
that MaIkai, one Of the witnesses, had asked
him to procure liquor for him, which he refused
TO do that Maikai then asked him to
come to his house. He went with him and
Maikai offered him 81 to buy liquor, which he
again refused. Then Naikai said if he would
not get him the liquor he would haul in upon
him and say that he had been stealing in his
house. Maikai then seized him and threw him
down and called out haul in" and had him
taken 10 the station house. This defence though
unsupported by other evidence appears To have
influenced the minds Of several of the jury.
They left the Court at 11.2O and a couple of
hours afterwards reported that they could not
agree, being divided q TO 6. The Court was not
prepared to hberate them so promptly, and after
instructing them on certain points of the case
and declining a request that lunch might be
supplied to them, sent them back for further
deliberation. About half an hour afterwards
they returned a verdict of guilty, with a recon-
mendation to mercy-three jurors dissenting.
The King VS. Louis Dubois. Embezzlement.
When this case was called AIr. Dole, defendants
counsel, moved that he be discharged from
custody, inasmuch as, that by the demise of the
late Chief Justice of the Court, and the failure
to fill the vacancy thereby caused, there is ut the
present time no Supreme Court. (Our report of
the argument and decision in this matter appears
in another column.) After the Judges decision
was rendered and q jury had with some diff
Guilty. been empanelled, MIR. Dole requested
that the trial be postponed till his exception to
the ruling Just given had been heard in Banco.
Mr.. Preston objected and suggested that the
Court could reserve the point for the full Court
instead Of having 1t argued as a bill of excep-
tons. Mr.. Dole thought the suggestion good,
but the Court preferred not to reserve the ques-
ton. The evidence for the prosecution was then
commenced. After Mr.. j. A. Hassinger and the
Postmaster-Genera had been examined, the case
was adjourned to next day.
Friday, 18th July.
The hearing Of the case against L. Dubois
was continued. occupying the whole day. The
jury returned a unanimous verdict of acquittal.