The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1882-02-04
SUPREME COURT.
JANUARY TERN.
Thursday Jan. 10th.
Before the Full Court.

Before the Fun Court.
julius Maguin, by his next friend, 5. Magnin
VS. l.. Furgie exceptions % the ruling OF Mr.,
Justice McCully, sustaining the demurrer. Mr..
Davidson argued the oxceptions. contending that
an oral agreement could he put in evidence to
explain the contract. Mr.. Preston for the defend
ant, argued that il was only in cases where the
meaning ofan agreement was doubtful. that tesii-
mony as 70 what had passed between the parties,
by word OF mouth, could be used 10 elucidate IL.
Mr.. Davidson in reply sought to bring this case
within the rule cited by counsel for the defence.
The contract contained an agreement TO return
the premium, it the directors OF the Insurance
Company did not chose TO carry 1t out aud the
oral testimony was offered in order TO fix the tune
within which the option LETT with the directors
was TO be used. Judgment reserved.
Joe Burrows vs. Paaiuhi appeal from the I'M
tcrmediary Court. Mr.. Bickcrtou for plaintiff,
Mr.. Castle for defendant. Mr.. Castle said the
question was whether the parties were tenants In
common, and proceeded to Rlc a brief. Mr.. Bick-
erton claimed for his client, that he had not NO,
lated any of the rules OF the Hui, and eabmittcd
the case on the decision of Judge McCelly as Civ
en- in the Court below, saying that he did not
think he could file a better brici.
Antoine Pedro VS. Chum Yum Fan appeal from
the Intermediary Court. Mr.. Hatch for plaintiff,
Mr.. Whiting for defendant, the appellant. A
survey, filed in the Land Office, dated March %.
1862, was produced by MIR. Smithies. This COR
responded with the survey relied on by the plain
tiff. The exceptions were argued and their
HonOrs reserved their decision.
In re. Barenabl deceased. This matter was or
dered to stand over till next term.
Fook Gee vs. J.. Ahl0. The new trial ordered
in this case was continued 10 next term.
F.. Enos VS. Wo Sing appeal from the decision
of the Commissioners of Ways and Waters. Mr..
j. l.. Kaulukou for the plaintiff, MIR. Castle for
defendant. The defendants case was that tue
Commissioners had no jurisdiction, the
matter being Ia fact an action OF trespass. Plain
tiff claimed a right of way, and the testimony was
that there had been a public right OF way there
Tor thirty-two years his petition was to have the
road kept open. An argument occurred between
counsel as to the right OF the plaintiff to bring In
evidence in addition TO that given before the COM
missioners. The Court decided that the plaintiff
might supplement his testimony TO make any
thing clear that appeared obscure. The case not
being finished during the afternoon. was adjourn
ed to the following afternoon.
Friday, 9th.
Before Mr.. Justice McCuLLY.
II. Hackfeld, & Co. VS. Eugene Bal, et. al
This was Il motion for u new trial on the ground
that the verdict was not in accordance with the
evidence. At the bottom OF the dispute was tho
question az to the surrender to plaintiffs by Bal
of certain cattle also as TO whether or not q re-
lease had not been granted TO Bal on his surren-
dering his property, although il had not been Civ
en- in writing. Mr.. Bickerton for defendant, ar
gued that the only question for the Jury was, had
the defendant been released, although the release
had not been signed. Bal had agreed 20 do GER
tain things, such as giving up all bis property 20
plaintiffs, and be had performed his part of thu
agreement. Plaintiffs had on their part agreed
that If Inc did this he should have "A release, and
a member Of the firm had promised him. (Mr.
Bickerton) that he would sign the release, but
had put il off from day 10 day. and had2 never
signed it. lie submitted that il was not neccs-
sary the release shonld be signed, il the under
taking to sign could be proved. In regard to six
head OF cattle, about which there was a dispute,
Mr. pnuger had himself told counsel, that the
firm had received them. Mr.. Dole for PLAINTIFF,
submitted that if they thought Bal had deceived
them in regard TO n certain hundred head of cat
tie said to belong 70 his ron they were perfectly
justified in refusing 70 sign the release. lie con-
tended that no time had been shown when the
release had been made and that n letter which
had been put III evidence and which bore date 18th
June showed the the matter had not then been
settled between the parties. Mr. Bickcrtop said
IN reply that there was a positive release Ia Nov
ember 1880. if his own evidence was TO be be-
lieved. His Honor said that the verdict must
stand if there were evidence TO support at, and
that in his opinion il was not without estimony
to support it, and he should therefore refuse the
motion. Mr.. Dole noted an exception TO the ruiz
ing.
Kawainui k. vs. Kawainui W.. The Court rem
dered judgement granting the divorce.
Lydia Chapman vs. w. A. Chapman. Divorce.
Decree granted.
Z. r. Foster vs. Luaialani. IL being arranged
to carry this before the full Court, HE Honor
oyerruled the motion pro (orma, and Mr.. Dole
noted his exception 70 the ruling.
KalaiokIkOi VS. II. Kalanu motion for q new
trial. The same course was pursued il this case.
Rex VS. w. NJ, Gibson libel. The Attorney
General entered a HOHe prOsegui herein.
Before the Full Court.
f.. EnOs VS. Wa Sing the hearing Of this mat
ter was continued, and the Court decided TO visit
the disputed right Of way in person, at 2 pm.
on the next day.
Saturday, 2Sth.
Before the Full Court.
LENA k. VI Pahau Ct al. exceptions to the
ruling Of NJ. Justice MeCully. Case submitted.
Before the CufEF JUSTICE.
j. p. Mcndonca VS. Kaaiahua. This case stood
over from the October term on account Of Nr.
lIartwelI's absence. His Honor said that be had
fully considered the case, and gave judgement for
the plaintiff for 5000 50 and costs.
Before Mr.. Justice MCCUuY.
Hung zee Il al. VS. Chung Wa appeal from tho
Intermediary Court. The Chief Justice bad de-
c!ined to hear this ease at the October term, hav-
inc presided in the lower Court when il was tried
there. Mr.. Hatch appeared for plaintiff, and Mr..
for the defendant. An agreement to
waive the jury had been filed during the October
term. but as the Chief Justice had declined the
Jurisdiction, Mr.. Hartwell considered that he was
entitled to a jury. On this point the Court de-
cided that the waiver having been once fled it was
final, and binding, and fixed 18th February as
the day for hearing the case.
The Court then adjourned Sne die.
Monday, Both.
IN CHANCERY.