The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1881-04-30

Hama vs. Mehekula. Divorce case. Further
evidence was taken and the hearing continued
till Goth inst.
MONDAY APRIL 25rH.
BEFORE Mr.. JUSTICE McCULLY.
L. G.. Sresovich & Co., VS. VI. McInerney.
Assumpsit. The referees in this case Messrs
X. +. Bickerton, L. p. Adams and S. b. Dole,
having filed a majority report to the effect that
there was no claim against defendant beyond the
amount paid into Court, Mr.. Preston moved
that judgment be entered accordingly. In regard
TO costs Mr.. Hatch, counsel for plaintiff, objected
to the fees of the referees (S50.O0 each) on the
ground that they were engaged only parts of
two days. He also applied to have the costs
appOrtiOned. The Court ordered Judgment to be
entered for the defendant and took the matter
brought up by Mr.. Hatch into consideration
In subsequently fixing the fees to be allowed to
the referees at S15 each, Mr.. Justice McCully
remarked that referees are called by the Court
to serve. 1t Is obligatory upon them to do so.
They are quasi jurors. The Statute does not
fix their compensation, but Commissioners of
Rights of Way and Water receive each 50 per
day-the Board of Tax Appeal the same. Jurors
receive a much less sum, although their duties
are liable to be very Onerous. II Is not intended
that the costs of Judicial proceedings shall be
oppressive, and in cases where citizens are re-
quired to assist the Court as jurors or referees,
1t may be considered that they are discharging "a
citizen service and duty for others, which they
may require also in their turn. 1t is not AN
appointment for profit. These principles Will
apply likewise when lawyers are appointed as
Commissioners or referees. Except when pro-
fesslonal knowledge is required they will be
considered to be acting as men of judgment and
discretion and business knowledge and will not be
entitled to fees on the scale of professional men. s"
The costs of the reference were ordered to follow
the judgment.
Smith VS. Ho San. In this ejectment case the
Court rendered a decision finding the present
value Of the plaintiff T. S interest in the land to be
$63.S2.
H. J. Agnew VS. A. Mcwayne. Mr.. Preston
moved that the verdict of the jury in this case
be set aside and a new trial granted. The Court
suggested that the motion might have taken
another form, asking for a Judgment for the
plaintiff non ObSfaHte Ueredicfo and, after hearing
counsel on both sides, ordered judgment to be so
recorded. Mr.. W. G. Jones, counsel for the
defendant excepted to the decision, as also to
the instructions given by the Court to the jury
during the trial.
James Mcguire VS. The Union Fire and Marine
Insurance Company of New Zealand. Motion
for a new trial. Mr.. Preston moved that the
verdict in this case be set aside as contrary to
law and evidence and u new trial ordered. Mr..
Hartwell for the plaintiff cOntended that there
was evidence to support the verdict of the jury,
the vessel having been shown to be water-logged
and u wreck. The Court refused the motion.
TUESDAY APRIL 2GTH.
BEFoRE MR. JCsTICR MCCULLY.
Kauwahi wv VS. Keahi Ck.) \ decree of
divorce was ordered in this case on the evidence
Of His Honor the Chief Justice.
H. Kaahanui (k) VS. Kaialawe w. The
ground on which the divorce was sought was
desertion. The respondent admitted that she
was living with another man and Il decree of
divorce was accordingly granted.
Kalanikapu (w) vs. Panaewa * The ground
Of the petition in this case also was desertiOn,
the respondent having been living for years with
another woman by whom he has five children.
Decree granted.
KoIita Kawaiala (w) VS. Kahaialii (k.) The
respondent was charged with d%esertion and
adultery which he denied. He also stated his
willingness to live with his wife. A reconcilia-
ton was effected in Court, and the divorce was
refused.
McGregor VS. VI. Kuaea. The Court disallowed
the item of $50 for surveyors bill, which MIR.
Hartwell had on behalf of the defendant claimed
among the costs III this case.
Hofschlaeger VS. Han Same et al. His Honor
announced the decision of the full Court in this
matter to be that the demurrer was sustained.
The Court then adjourned till Saturday (this
day) at 10 A. NJ.