The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1881-01-22

: NLorriII william Patten Merrill, Obed B. Merrill,
Susan Patten, Rufus Patten, Emmellne Eunice
Howe, Mary Jane Merrill, james Merrill. John r.
Merrill and Edward Merrill the heirs Of the late
| Constant f. Merrill of Honolulu. Sarah chapman
Weed claims to hold q certain piece OF land formerly
the property of the said Constant T. Merrill by
| virtue Of a will made in her favor by the latter. The
complainants say that Merrill was " of unsound
mind when he made his will and pray that it may
be declared null and void. The case was partly
heard and adjourned to II noon on
TUESDAY, JANUARY 18th, when the hearing was
continued.
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 18th.-The Merrill case
was concluded. Judgment was reserved.
CIVIL cAsEs.-FoREIGN JURIEs.
MONDAY, JANUARY 20th.-James Mcguire VS. The
Union Fire and Marine Insurance Company OF New
Zealand. This was a claim in respect oil the
90 Eugenia NJ. Briggs" which vessel was allowed 10
90 ashore at Huelo, Maui, last June. She was IN
sured with the above named company, by a policy
running from December 9th, 1879 to June 9th. 1851,
and in the Swiss Lloyds by an annual policy. The
evidence for the plaintiff was to the effect that when
abandoned the evening before her stranding, she was
fall Of water, that the wind was from the n. N. L.
or Whereabouts, with q rough sea and that under such
circumstances the abandonment was justitiable. The
cargo she carried was lumber and railway iron. For
the defense Mr.. Preston submitted that the 9th OF
June, the day Of the abandonment was not included
in the terms Of the policy. Mr. HartWell In reply
commended that the custom Of the country MADE the
policy run till noon on the 9th, and that the legal
authorities on the subject justify the construction
that it ran till midnight. Mr.. Preston claimed that
if the custom referred to exists it should be proved
and even il il were so, the crew did not leave the
ship till the evening Of the 9th. 1t was claimed that
the American rule should apply to this case, but the
Court was of the opinion that as the defendants were
a British company the English rule must apply. MT:
Walker gave evidence as to the policy on the vessel
and stated that he had ordered her to be sold for the
benefit of whom it might concern. She only brought
some trihing sum. On the motion OF Mr.. freston'
the Court reserved the point as to whether the sixth
was included in the policy. The case was then sent
to the jury who after twenty minutes dell6eratlon,
returned q verdict for the plaintiff, from which three
of their number dissented. Mr.. Preston immediate
ly excepted to the verdict as against both law and
evidence.
LIZ G. Sresovich VS. NJ. McInerny. Assumpsit. In
this case the Court having been advised that the
accounts between these parties extend over a period
of five years, and that they involve disputed items OF
almost monthly and perhaps more frequent occur
renee directed (by virtue dissection 1131 of the Civil
Code) that these accounts be referred to three
Referees ; the plaintiff and defendant each to name
one and the Court nominating Mr.. K. +. Bickerton
as the third.
Alec and Chong Fook vs. Anan and Chock Chung
Au ejectment case. The title in dispute was q lease
hold one. After the evidence had been taken Mr..
Davidson for the defendants moved for a nonsult,
but the Court ruled that after having joined issue
and introduced evidence before the jury he could mol
do so, to which ruling Mr.. Davidson excepted
Before the case went to the jury Mr.. Hartwell for
plaintiffs submitted that the only remedy which
defendants had, if they were wronged, was to bring
q Bill in Equity or to bring a suit for damages foi
the failure to give q new lease. The jury brought In
q verdict for the plaintiffs with $50 damages. Mr.
Davidson excepted to the verdict as against the law
and the evidence.