The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1881-08-13

IN this petition was that the respondent Is a%flict-
Ell with leprosy. The .case was partly heard.
and adjourned 90 23d July, IN order that the
priest who performed the marriage might be lden-
tilted.
Auhea lwJ vs.. Kaiapeelua lk.) In this case a
decree had been granted at tile April Ierm- and
respondent ordered 20 pay 81, which he failed
% do. He appeared IN answer 20 q citation, and
the Judge informed him that unless the money
were paid by 26th July, he should commit HIM
20 prison, there % remain until the order Of
Court was Obeyed.
Pila Kaualoa * -. Hlkimalama (w.) De
sertOn and adultery were proved against the
respondent, and the Court granted a divorce.
Mr.. J. L. Kaulukou appeared for the hbellant.
d. KahoOhanohano Ok -. KealOha tw.l 4
decree was granted on the ground Of desertion-
MONDAY. July 18th.
The King vs.. Akona alias Along. Keeping a
common gambling house. In this case the pri-
sOner pleaded guilty before the Police Justice,
but afterwards desires 10 withdraw his plea,
which the Magistrate. would not allow. Mr..
Hartwell appeared for the prisoner, and stated
that the request to allow his plea had been made
by him before sentence, and that he denied that
he had understood the nature OF the charge
against him. Mr.. Preston urged that the trial
should proceed, and quoted Section. s, Chapter
26 Of the Civil Code. The Court took time to
consider.
The trial If Ed. Rhodus for perjury followed,
and on the 18th and 10th July the Court was Oc-
cupied with the trial Of the case against Father
Larkin. and the action by the Government
&ANAAANA AAE AANA ava AAI -ANA W. ~
proceedings have been already reported in the
ADVERTISER.
THURSDAY, July 21st.
Jas. Mcguire (as Trusted vs.. The Union Fire
and Marine Insurance Co. Of New Zealand.
This case was tried for the third time. The evi-
dence was the same as reported in the former
trials, although not so fully supported by the
testimony Of experts as 10 the condition Of the
ship. Mr.. Preston, for defendants, asked the
Court to instruct the jury that there was no evi-
dence Of a total loss before u o'clock on the
Sunday night, at which hour the policy of insur-
auce lapsed. Mr.. Hartwell, counsel for plaintiff,
referred 10 the second clause OF the policy, to
which Mr.. Preston replied that there was no
evidence 10 show that the vessel could not have
been repaired for 5000. Tn Court inquired
II there was anything for the jury TO pass upon.
Mr.. Hartweil contended that IL was not for the
Court 90 say there was nothing for the jury pass
upon. Tie Court preferred sending the case To
the jury, to which decision Mr.. Preston noted
an exception. The jury, after deiberation for
one hour and q half returned a verdict for the
defendants, three dissenting. AIr. Hartwell eX-
cepted 10 the verdict as against law and evidence.
A. b. McCausland ". JnO. Fowler & Co. As
sumpsit. Verdict for defendant, with recon-
mendation by the jury Of a liberal treatment Of
Plaintiff by Messrs Fowler x Co, talready re-
pOrted.)
FRIDAY. July 22d.
Peni vs.. Holokahiki. In this case Judgment
was given for plaintiff for S2I9 and costs.
Nawili (w) Guardian Of kama Ct al. and VIM.
McCandless IS. VIM. Aud It al. Ejectment,
jury waived. Mr.. Castle, Counsel for plaintiffs,
read a statement Of facts agreed upon between
the parties, and proposed to submit the case
without argument. Mr.. Preston, for defendant,
acceded, merely referring To Bright on Husband
and Wife, Vol. II, p. IS. The Court announced
that its decision was in favor Of defendants, and
promised a written judgment.
f. Hoffschlaeger Il Co. vs.. Han Same, Avon
q al. Assumpsit. Mr.. Preston Cor the plain
tiffs, Mr.. Hartwell for defendants. After argu-
ment the Court allowed an amendment OF the
declaration as TO the date Of certain notes. The
case having been heard, Mr.. Preston claimed
judgment for Plaintiffs, inasnuch Is the defend
ants charged fraud. and had failed to prove it.
The Court gave Judgment FOR plaintiffs.
The King vs.. AEona alias Along In this case
Mr.. Hartwell now filed a motion in arrest Of
judgment. The Court said it was the duty Of
the Police Justice to send up the papers, espe-
cially the warrant, and he had not yet done so.
Mr.. Preston, for the Crown, cOntended that a
motion in arrest Of judgment, could not be made
after sentence was passed, but admitted that as
the case stood no offence was charged. Mr..
Hartwell then moved that the complaint be dis
missed, and that defendant be discharged on the
ground that no criminal offence known to the
law was charged. This the Court granted.
SATURDAY, July 23d.
DIVORCE CASES.
Pololu, (w) vs. Kaiwi. This petition was
withdrawn by leave Of the Court. Mr.. Kaulu-
kou appeared for the libellant and said that the
parties were recOnciied.
KaIei, wv vs. waimalu. Evidence Of the
marriage having been given by the Rev. Joseph
Monkani, a decree was granted.
II. I. Donnell VI Nellie Donnell. The libel
was ON the ground Of habitual intemperance and
adultery. Evidence being taken, the Court
granted a decree and awarded TO the hbellGnt
the custody Of his child, n girl of about four
years old. Mr.. Dole was counsel for the petit
tiOuer.
Kina, (w) VS. Keehi. Mr.. Bickerton appeared
for Kina. Evidence was brought to show the
adultery of the respondent, and a decree granted
with custody of the child to the mother.
MONDAY July 25th.
Serene E. Bishop VS. Ahlo and Loo Ngawk.
This was an action for a trespass by which the
plaintiff had been deprived of a strip of land
and Of a ditch and the water 1t used to convey.
The case occupied the whole day. After a short
deliberatiOn the jury returned a verdict for the
plaintiff, damages $1,000. Mr.. Castle for defen-
dants excepted to the verdict. iIr. Dole was
counsel for the the plaintiff.
TUESDAY, July 26th.
KeaO, O) VS. Wo Sing Co. Ejectment. In
this case no defence was entered. Mr.. Castle
appeared for the plaintiff. The case having
been stated, and some evidence taken, the Court
n verdict for the plaintiff, and that what they
had 10 consider was the amount of damages
that should be awarded / IN respect of the adverse
occupation. The jury without retiring, returned
n unanimous verdict, fixing damages at 500.
The following jurymen were fined 81 each
for not ~answeri2- TO their names, Il. +. Dllling-
ham, F Godfrey, +. A. Harnden and l.. Isaac.
RepOla, (k) vs. AhlOi, (Ch.) This was also
an e~jectment case. Mr.. Castle for plaintiff Mr..
j. /. Kaulukou for the defendant. The case
having been heard. Mr.. Kauiukou asked the
Court TO instruct the jury 10 find for the defen-
daut. The case was one Of heirship and defen-
dant relied ON the fact that IN 1853 the Probate
Court had found that HoOkano. through whom
defendant : title comes. was nephew and only
surviving relative Of Keliikuhoe. who had been
the owner Of the land now IN dispute. The