The Hawaiian gazette., 1881-11-16
advance of the genuine colonist in the rear Of
that grim skirmisher the " border rufRan,' the
daailraiiafr G7azRttR.


Hatch put in an affidavit as to new evidence and
lsft the matter to the Court to decide; Mr.. kau-
lukou. 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 70 consider.
Robt. Briggs vs. J. Il. Mills; motion for n new
trial. Mr.. Jones for the defendant stated the
I grounds Of his motion to he-lst, that the YER
I dict was contrary to the law and the evidence;
I 2nd, that the damages were excessive to such
degree as to show that the jury disreglrded the
instructions Of the court regards evidence IN
mitigation. or were influenced by prejudice, OF
were mistaken as regards the force and weight
Of the evidence and all the circumstances of the
case; NJ. Dole, FOR the plaintiff, denied that the
verdict was contrary to the evidence; the
amount was not excessive and it was on the dis
cretion Of the jury TO name the punishment and
the amount Of damages. Mr.. Bickerton, Tor
plaintiff eontended that it was very hasty YER
dict the Jury were ont only few minutes and
showed prejudice. The court said that to dis
turb a verdict like this. the motion must be sup
ported by afidavits. These DEFENDANTS counsel
declined to furnish. vhereupon the court took
time TO consider Judgment.
SATURDAY. October 29th.
Fook Gee vs. L. Ahlo. Il al; motion for new
trial Mr. Austin read the motion filed and also
the affdavits in support and said that letter
was receiver W % ~ w. ANAlANAl
had had translated. instruciing Ahlo to collect
all the sums due from the men except Fock
Gees. BE promised to produce the letter and
translation in the court and would argue the
motion subject to their production. Mr.. Austin
also presented exceptions TO the verdict etc,
which the court instructed him 10 embody in a
bill 10 come before the Court III Banco, next
term. Mr.. Austin proceeded 10 argue his
motion for a new trial. From affdavits on the
.sH -. III. -, HI
been paid to Hackfeld & Co. and that SS4, $50
had been collected by Aho He admitted that
the letter he now relied on had been presented
IN court at the first trial and was objected to by
himself because he did not know its contents till
after the trial. Mr.. Hatch IN reply said the
letter had been produced by his side at the
trial in order 70 prove the amount paid TO Hack
field & Co., and Mr. Austin objected 70 1t, and 1t
was ruled out and now he wanted it introduced,
fancying that it might strengthen his case. 1t
was never pretended that the amount paid 10
Haekfeld x Co. was all that was collected. 1t
was now the defendants strongest point to have
this letter introduced, yet it was objected TO at
the outset by Mr. Austin. Mr. Austin In reply
claimed that where the case was Chinese case
and REQUIRED the translation Of all the docu-
mentS, ii was different from the usual run Of
cases in the English language; that he had sup
posed that the document stated that S34, 40 had
t'fA l'i-i yrSE 70 hachielu d W. WHICH was
mistake. Mr.. Hatch said that he offered to
prove on the trial the payment Of $4,000 to
Hackield & Co., and the balance making the
S34. $50 paid over TO Him Wo Tai Il Co. by |
Ahlo. The court took time TO consider the |
matter
J. P. Mendonca VS. Kaaiahua; action Of debt. |
Castle & Hatch, for plaintiff A. 5. Hartwell /
BY Austin Whitney, for defendant. !
This case was only partly heard, and stands |
over till next session.
The Court adjourned sine die.
NoTE.-J Judgments in the cases kepola vs. |
Ahloi. and Briggs VS.. Mills, have been placed
on file. but are withheld from publication TIL
the return OF counsel interested from Waimea.