The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1881-01-22
Supreme Court.
JANUARY SESSION. 1881.
Before His Honor the Chief Justice
Chas. C.. Harris, ESQ.

Before His Honor the Chief Justice
Chas. C.. Harris, Esq.
FRIDAY, JANUARY th.-AndreW Welch vs.
Thomas Spencer. Assumpsit. This suit was for a
sum claimed by WEIGH under an agreement. The
document had not been signed by the partners but
by their respective attorneys, the late firm of Green
Macfarlane & Co, acting in that capacity for Capt.
Spencer. An important point in the case was
whether the authority conveyed by the power Of
attorney enabled the persons signing the deed to
make an arrangement Of this character binding on
their principals. The Court oyer-ruled several OBJ
jections raised by Mr.. Davidson. who appeared as
counsel the for defense. Before the jury retired. Mr..
Davidson excepted to His Honor's summing up, LIST,
because he had said that the powers of attorney were
both sufficient TO convey authority to make the
disputed agreement End. because he instructed the
jury to find a verdict for S10,0 900 aud 81 300 in
terest ; Srd. because he had laid il down that the
agreement bound Spencer 10 ship all sugur to San
Francisco. and therefore to Welch, so that by certain
shipments TO Portland he broke that agreement. The
jury brought in q verdict for the plaintiff for
S7729-S5, to which Mr.. Davidson at once excepted as
being against both the law and the evidence. Mr..
Hatch appeared for the plaintiffs.
DIVORCE CASES.
SATURDAY, JANUARY 15th.-E. A. M. Giles vs.
Henry Giles The parties were married on June 9th,
1879. and Giles is now libeled for failure to provide
the necessaries Of life. Mr.. Bickerton appeared for
the libellant- The case was heard. and judgment
reserved.
Keahiwela (W) vs. Kailiulaula. This case had been
been continued from October term to give Kailiulaula
who was accused OF desertion, an opportunity Of an
sSering the charge. A letter from him was now
produced IN which he excused himself for the deser-
ton on the ground that he was now living with
another woman. by whom he had had five children.
The divorce was granted, aud an order was made
against the respondent for $50 cost. to be paid with
in one week.
Kauki wv VsPuhi. The grounds alleged for seek
ing divorce were /" extreme and continued c~ruelty.'
Mr.. Holokahiki appeared for the libellant, who failed
to establish the truth Of her charges against Puhi.
who declared himself very much attached to her and
anxious that she should return to him. In the
course Of The evidence, Kauki acknowledged that she
had already had three husbands, and that she meant
to have another If she could get rid of this one. His
Honor ordered her to return home with Publ, but AT
fret she absolutely refused. However matters were
made smooth and the record now In
90 reconciled in Court" Mr.. j. L. Kaulukou ap-
peared for Publ.
Kahoki (W) vs. Maksi (k). In this case. which was
heard on the 9Th inst, the Court refused q divorce.
Makai was charged with d~esertion, but the ev.dence
in support Of the charge was not satisfactory. The
parties have been man and wife for 80 years.
BANco SITTING.
MONDAY, JANUARY 17th-Joseph Merrill vs. Sarah
Weed. The complainants, for whom
MIR. Benz Austen appeared, are Joseph Merrill, N.