The Hawaiian gazette., 1881-11-16
.dv.ngs q a. ssaoins eaIapi.. in BE- - i

Hatch put in aa AFFIDAVIT rs 70 new evidence and
I len the matter to the Court to decide; Mr.. kau-
I lr,N,a Ter AAioi. argued that the new evidence
-r,iea On Vas only cumulative and that there
] fa-s the new trial should be denied The Court
I sook TIME II consider
RoHt. Bsiz,ss vs. J. r. Mills; motion for new
t-ial. NJ. Jones, for the defendant. stated the
I grounds q his motion to he-iSi, that the YER
Z dc. vas contrary 10 the Law and the evidence;
sni. ihst the damages were excessive 70 such
q degree - to show that the jury dis-eSsried the
Instructions OF the court as regards evidence IN
mitigation. OF were Influenced by prelUdice, OF
were mistaken a. regards the force and weight
a the evidence ana al the circumstances Of the
case: NJ Dole, tor the plaintiff denied that the
verdict was contrary 70 the evidence; the
amount vas not excessive and 1t was on the DIS
cretiOn Of the jury 70 name the punishment and
the amount al damages. Mr.. Rickertoa, for
plaintiff contendei that il was very hasty YER
DICT. the july were ont only few minutes and
showed prejudice. The court said that t. dis
turb a verdict ike this. the motion must be sup
ported by af.siavi;s. These desendantS counsel
declined 70 furnish. wass7cupon the court took
time 70 consider Judgment.
SI-UKnAY. October 10Th.
Fook Gee Is L. Ahlo q si.; motion fO- new
trial. Nh. Austin rad the motion fled and also
the AiidsvitS in support and said that letter
had had translated instrucJIuS Ahlo 10 collect
al the sums due fron the men except Fock
Gees. BE promised 10 produce the letter and
translation IN the court and would argue the
motion subject 70 Their probation Mr.. Austin
also presented exceptions to the verdict etc,
which the court instructed him 70 elnboiy IN
biu 70 come before tbs Court II Banco next
tenn NJ Austin p-oceeded TO argue his
motion foz new trial. From afsdavits on the
dle. It appeared that $4,000 was aliIhat had
been paid 10 Haekfeld Il Co. and that 80, 450
had been collected ~ Ahlo. BE admitted that
the letter he now relied on had been presented
IN court * the first trial and was objected to by
himself because be did not know its contents till
after the Trial. NJ. Hatch II reply said the
Letter had been p7olueed by his SIDE at the
TRIAL II order 70 prove the amount paid 70 Hack
field & Co. and Mr.. Austin objected 70 II, and II
was ruled out and now be wanted il introduced,
farcying that 1t might strengthen his case. 1t
was never pretended that the amount raid to
Hacked x Co. VS. all that Vas collected It
was non the defendants strongest point to have
this letter introduced. vet il ggS objected TO 81
the outset by Mr. Austin. Air. Austin II reply
clsiuei that where the case was Chinese case
and required the translation of all the 6ocu- 4
nentS. Il vas different from the usual run Of
cases n the English language: that he had sup
posed that the document stated that So, $50 had 4
been s,s:i s.eE 10 Hackfeld & Co., which was q
Mr.. Hatch said that he offered 70 4
prove On the trial the payment Of $4,000 to 4
Hackield + Co, and the balance making the /
S34-45 paid over 70 Him Wo Tai Il Co. by .
Ahlo. The court took time 10 consider the I
matter.
!. p. Mendonca rs kaaiahua; action Of debt.
Castle i Hatch. for plaintiff; 4. ) Hartwe,l 4
-sp1esented by Austin whi:asy. for defendant.
This case was only partly heard. and stands 4
over TIL next session.
The Court adjourned sine die
N5zE.-Jadgmeats IN the eases hspola vs.
Ahloi. and Briggs rs. Mills have been placed
N tle. but are withheld from publication TIL 4
lie return q counsel interested from Wsimsa.