The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1881-12-10
SUPREME COURT.

The following judgments in cases heard
during the late Special Term have been given.
H.. \. =. Carter, Minister Of the Interior vs..
Loo Ngawk e. al. The Attorney General for the
plaintiff, Mr.. Hurtwell for defendant. In this
case Judge Austin delivered the Judgment OF the
Court IN favor Of the plaintiff. The only
point which had come up TO the full Court was
that raised by Mr.. Hartwell rs TO the c%OnstItu-
ton Of the jury, the full number OF jurors re-
CURED for the term at which the case was heard
not having been summoned. After reciting the
provisions Of the law il regard 10 the selection
and summOniug Of jurors the judgment proceeds
IS follows There Is no provision for any
drawings Of jurors except at the times or in the
manner before stated. The drawing for the
term to be regular must be twenty days before it
sits. II the exception Is to prevail 1t will come
% this, that many times, and perhaps ninety
niue times in a hundred, owing to the uncer-
tilntIes Of human life and human affairs, among
fOrty-eight men selected to be summoned, or one
hundred men selected as tit for jurors. a term
appointed 20 be held. for which parties and wit
nosees and counsel and judges are ready, will
fall through, and we shall be obliged to appoint
extraordinary terms, subject again TO be defeated
by new changes IN the lists drawn and sent out
TO be summoned. 1t has been suggested by
counsel that a provision should be added To the
law requiring the jurors TO be summoned n def
mite number Of days before the term. Even this
would not insure beyond contingency the sum
moning Of a full jury list. At any moment
death might come IN and prevent It. No
amendment could be made by which one or even
seven jurors, out a list Of forty-eight jurors,
might not necessarily remain -umm on
the first day Of term. Exceptions over
ruled"
Thomas Martin * Son vs.. Nahoa. Mr.. Dole
for plaintiffs. As reported IN the ADVERTISER Of
26th uit. the point appealed upon was the valid
lty Of q labor contract made between parties
both Of whom are Hawaiians and written only in
the Hawaiian language. 1t was commended on
behalf Of the defendant that he could not be held
bound by the contract because 1t was not in
accordance with the first section of the Masters
and Servants Act 1865. which reads as follows
% All contracts for service between masters and
servants, where either Of the contracting parties
- Of Hawaiian birth, shall be written and printed
IN both the hawaiian and English languages.
No such contracts shall have effect in law when
executed in one language only. The contract
was made prior 70 the passing Of the Act of 1880
which contains n provision for the case when
both parties are Hawaiian. The decision OF the
Court, which was given by Judge McCully, was
IN favor Of the plaintiffs, on the ground that the
term " either " does not include both" nor
does " both - the greater intend and therefore
include the less, 81 either" After quoting pro-
vision in the law Of 1880 the Judgment goes on
70 say ' This simply substitutes - only one - for
e. either, and adds a prOvIsO against constituting
'' only one - to mean a. both" In our view the
statute of 1865 expressed the same thing. Ii Is
not "a necessary Inference that II did not. because
II i here enacted IN other terms. The reason OF
tine amendment appears in the proviso against a
construction which might be made, and, as in
the case before us has been made, from a failure
TO properly cOustrue the term either! for
which the later statute substitutes - only one
as a palmer and equivalent term. and from alum
daut caution further declares that this Is not 10 ,
be held to mean both. 1t Is AN explanatory
.statHte. Judgment for the plaintiffs and the like
Judgment III the several cases submitted at the
time between the same plaintiffs and Rdd-
ngGHI. Rdyus and HOHOii.