The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1881-04-30
SUPREME COURT.
THURSDAY APRIL nth. 1881.
(CoSTISUED.)
BEFORE Mr.. JUSTICE McCULLY.

Cl3tllleu All the ldlu described IL a
ROYAL Patent No. 1924, except what has been
taken by the Government for School street.
After the evidence of Mr.. Monsarrat and Captain
Jackson had been taken, plaintiff : counsel
asked for a nOn-suit because the discrepancies
we're so great In the surveys that it was not
possible TO reconcile them without having fresh
and careful surveys made of the land in regard
to which the dispute as to title had arisen, after
which he would bring a new action.
SATURDAY APRIL 10TH.
DIVORCE CASES.
Hama vs. MehekuIa. The libel in this case is
on the ground Of deseTtiOn and adultery. Mr..
HOlOkahiki appeared for the hbellant and Mr..
;. l.. kaulukOU for the respondent. After evil
deuce on both sides had been taken further pro-
ceedinss were adjourned to 23d inst.
Kioki Poi " Luka Pulu. Adultery was
charged against the respondent. The parties
were married IN April 1869 by Mr.. Green at
Makawao. After hearing the evidence the Court
granted the divorce.
MONDAY APRIL 18TH.
BEFORE The Full COURT.
The King vs. Leong Lung. Sentence of death
pronounced, a. reported in last weeks ADyEB-
TIsEE.
TUESDAY APRIL 10TH.
II. A.. p. Carter President of the Board of
Health vs. II. Hackfeld az Co. Action of debt on
Bond. Mr.. Preston for the plaintiff and yIr.
HartweIl for defendants. This was a claim for
-, S42.O O for expenses incurred IN respect of the
passengers Nv the steamer SeptlllA during the
period Of their quarantine. Mr.. Hartwell read
defendants answer and stated that the sum Of
1888 had been rendered IN satisfaction of such
portions Of the claim as defendants admitted
liability for. He further stated that these passen-
gers had been fed. and the buildings put up. at
the expense of Messrs Hackfeld X Co., or their
principals, and urged that under such circum-
stances a strictly legal construction should be
put upon the terms Of the Bond. The most
considerable items in this claim were as follows:
n 90 n
services 2 foreign police night and day S2I0 {;
ditto 3 boats and men S5O4 ditto 20 days and
nights 4 foreign officers 500 13 days and
nights 2 ditto SI3O care of patients at hospital
$685. services Of guards for different periods
varying from % to 43 days $1I2O. A sum of
$7sj was acknowledged as received on account
from Nessrs Hlckfeld Il Co. After hearing the
arguments of counsel the Court reserved Judg-
ment.
Z. Hofschlaeger Il Co.. VS. Han Same ct al.
Exceptions To the ruling Of Mr.. Justice McCulIy
given ON April IIth. The defendant had demur-
red 10 the declaration and the Judge had sustained
the demurrer granting plaintiff leave to amend on
paying costs. Dir. Davidson now argued his
exceptions, and Mr.. Hartwell having replied the
case was submitted.
"WEDNESDAY APRIL 10Th
Before Mr.. JUSTICE McCULLY.
II. J. Agnew vs. Albert Mcwayne. A~ssumpsit.
In this case, which was briefly reported IN the
ADVERTISER last week, the Judge said that the
money which was the subject matter of the
action was in the hands of the stakeholder, and
that II the jury found that such was the case he
should rule that 1t could be recovered. The jury
nevertheless returned a verdict for the defendant
two dissenting. Mr.. Preston excepted to the
verdict.
James Mcguire CTrustee) VS. The Union Fire
and Marine Insurance Co, of N. Il. This was
new trial in the case Of a claim for the loss
Of the brig Eugenia VI. Briggs. Mr.. HaTtwell for
the plaintiff and Mr.. Preston for the defendants.
evidence adduced was a repetition of that
given at the former trial. The verdict given was
for the plaintiff. This was "A repetition of the
verdict of the first jury (from which three
iIssented) n verdict as to which the Chief Justice
the following remarks, when giving his
decision on the motion for u new trial ." 1t Is
obvious that the vessel was not IL total wreck or
tuv wreck at all at II o'clock Sunday night, and
the jury must have made y mistake and totally
the testimony, and the %lnstTuc-
tiOns of the Court, nor can | conceive Of any
reason upon which the verdict can be founded
than the mistaken belief that the risk
Of defendant Company expired at midnight on
Monday the 7th June" Mr.. Preston excepted
10 the new verdict as contrary to law and the
evidence.
In re-. J.. NJ. Herring. Appeal from the
Commissioners of Ways and Waters. Mr.. Hart
for appellant, BIr. Preston for the Govern
ment. The Commissioners had awarded Mr..
$1,000 as compensation for his being
deprived of the right to run cattle on his land
" LAtAt - HAAA VI III hdttATAAel Abl lAACh IL /
NIakiki reservoir Is supplied. The case occu-
pied the Court the whole of the remainder OF the
and on
THURSDAY APRIL 21sr
till noon, when the jury after a short deIibera-
ION returned n verdict confirming the original
award Of $1,000. Three jurors dissented.
Thomas Eeefe vs. Makalekea Keefe. Libel for
Divorce. Messrs Monsarrat and Russell for the
ibelIant and Mr.. w. c.. Jones for respondent.
ground ON which divorce was sought was
l~esertiOn, which the respondent in her answer
After hearing the evidence the Court
the law required that everything should be
'rOved, and it did not appear that there was any
roof Of the respondent having deserted the
ibellant without cause.-The case would therefore
e continued till next term to enable counsel to
further testimony.
FRIDAY, APRIL %.
BEFORE THE FULL Court.
The judgments Of the Court in the cases the
4 the Board of Health vs. III. Hackfeld Il Co,
given as reported IN the ADVERTISER last
Teek- The judgment in the former case which
of much public interest Is published in full
d tO-day's issue (see fourth PageI.
The King vs. James Thomas. CReported last
reek).
SATURDAY, APRIL %.
BEToEE THE FULL COURT.
X. Paiko ct al ~ J. VI. Kapena. Appeal from
be Commissioners OF Ways. In this case the
he jury was waived Mr.. Hatch appeared for
he plaintiff and Mr. J. kaulUkau for the defen-
ant. After hearing the evidence and the argu-
lents Of counsel, the Court took time to con-
ider.
Henry Smith vs. HO San. Ejectment. In this
also the jury had been waived. Mr.. r. f. =
for the plaintiff and Mr.. Hatch for de- !
This was a new trial obtained bv the :
,laintid against whom the decision in the for
rer trial had gone. The ground for the new
was the discovery OF fresh evidence. a J
roman named haukapau. who was supposed to :
e dead, having been discovered to be alive. :
.fter hearing case the Court took time to con {
ider. /
Akan VS. Kamoa and Hoomana. Action fn- =