The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1881-11-12
SUPREME COURT.
WEDNESDAY,, October 2Gth.
E.llr. AIr. Justice JUDI.

LII" %" u TUT" TT- 20" -" !" ~.
When Kalua lost the case in the Magistrate
Court, lac appealed 10 the Intermediary Court
which confirmed Judge BickertOn's decision,
and then 90 the Supreme Court and a jury
There j. no other country IN the world where a
case involving so paltry an amount could have
thus secured three trials. Hence, when the
Jury brought in a verdict against kalua, he must at
least have had some sOluce III remembering that
he had enjoyed a larger amount OF litigation
about SIS-wOfth Of property than a subject of
any other government would have been favored
with The SOW was identified by an ear-mark
and her general appearance and her breed.
Kaluu claimed that she was by one Of his own
sows and an imported boar which had been run
ming wild about the ueighbOrhuOd Of his house.
The testimony for neither party was such As TO
Withstand criticism, and the natural inference
from It was that the pig in dispute did not be
long to either Of them. This seemed more Ger
tain as to kalua's pretended ownership than as
TO VictOrinO's; which Will account for the fact
that after a short adjournment the jury returned
a verdict for the plaintiff, three jurors dissent
ing. The case was tried before a mixed jury.
THURSDAY, October 9th.
=. f. Bishop vs. Ahlo and Loo Ngawk; motion
for q new trial. Mr.. Hatch appeared for the
defendants aud stated the grounds Of the motion.
These were that the verdict was contrary 10
law and evidence and that the amount OF
damages was excessive and unreasonable; Mr..
Bishops own valuation Of the damage To- a kalO
crop was $1,000 and how the jury arrived at a
verdict Of $1,000 he could not divine. Mr..
Dole for Mr. Bishop, pointed ont that III the
p~leadiugs there were two claims for damages set
up-1st. for injury to the land by digging a new
ditch and filling up an old one, and 2nd, for loss
Of kaIo crop. Mr.. Bishops evidence referred
TO by Mr.. Hatch had only been given rs 10 the
latter damage. The Court after referring 20 the
case. Bernard IS Loo Ngawk, said that IN the
present case the water had been detected from
~ acres kalO at % critical stage III ITS growth
and that the ditch made by defendants was OF
considerable leugth and IL feet wide, carrying
away the water from the PLAINTIFF land to
the land Of the defendants and the Court could
not say that the verdict Of the jury was Excess
siye and refused the motion.
Thomas Spencer. Jun, vs. VIC. Parke; motion
for Judgment non OJst1His rerefict0. Mr.. Hart
we'll. for plaintiff; Mr.. Hatch, for defendant.
Ii aUUeIrinI that Mr.. HurtwellS Bill of tx
c]eptious embraced this motion, and the Bench as
at present constituted not being able TO hear the
exceptions, the motion WAS withdrawn and
hearing Of the exceptions was adjourned to the
January term
Kepola - Ahloi; motion for q new trial. Mr..
Hatch put IN an affidavit as 20 new evidence and
left the matter To the Court to decide: Mr.. kau-
IuEOu, for AhlOi, argued that the new evidence
relied on was only cumulative and that there
fore the new trial should be denied. The Court
took time TO consider.
Robt. Briggs vs. J. Il. Mills; motion for a new
trial. NIr. Jones, for the defendant, stated the
grounds Of his motion To be-lst, that the YER
dict was contrary TO the law and the evidence
2ud, that the damages were excessive to such
20 degree as to show that the jury disregarded the
instructions Of the court as regards evidence II
mitigation, or were influenced by prejudice, ol
were mistaken as regards the force and weight
of the evidence and all the circumstance OF tht
case; Mr. Dole, for the plaintiff, denied that the
verdict was contrary TO the evidence; the
amount was not excessive and II was ON the dis
erection Of the Jury to name the punishment anc
the amount Of damages. Mr.. Bickertour fol
plaintiff. cOuteuded that II was "a very haSty yer
dict, the jury were ont only "a few minutes an'
showed prejudice. The court SAID that 70 ds
turb % verdict like this, the motion must be sup
ported 10y atidavits. These defendants c0un-e
declined 10 furnish, whereuPOn the court tool
time 10 consider Judgment.
SATURDAY, October both.
Fook Gee vs. L. Ahlo, At a.; motion for a new
trial. Mr.. Austin read the motion filed and als'
tine afidavits IN support and said that a lette
was received from Him Wo Tai y Co. (Which h
had had translated instructiug Ahlo 10 collec
all the sums due from the men except Foo
Gees. He promised TO produce the letter al
translation IN the court and would argue tn
motion subject to their production. Mr.. Austr
also presented exceptions 20 the verdict. etc:
which the court instructed MIN TO embody IN
bill to come before the Court IL BaucO, mex
term. Mr.. Austin proceeded to argue IN
motion for "a new trial. From afidavits ON TIA
file. II appeared that $4,000 was all that ha
been paid to Hackfeld X Co, and that S34,4j
had been collected by Ahlo. He admitted tina
the letter he now relied on had been presente,
IN court ut the first trial and was objected TO b
himself because he did not know Its contents Il
after the trial. Mr.. Hatch in reply said tn
letter had been produced by his side at tn
trial In order to prove the amount paid TO Hack
field x Co, and Mr.. Austin objected to II, and
was ruled out and now he wanted II INTRODUCED
faucving that II might strengthen his case
was never pretended that the amount PAID I
Hackfeld X Co. was all that was collected.
was now the defendants strongest point to nav
this letter introduced, yet II was objected TO
me outset by Mr.. Austin. Mr.. Austin IN repl
claimed that where the case was "A Chinese cas-
and required the translation Of all the docJ
ments. It was different from the usual run {
cases IN the English language; that he had SUI
posed that the document stated that S3i,40O la