The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1882-01-21
Monday, Jan. 18th,

HChN"gt N
Before the CHIEF Justice and Mr. Justice
McCULLY.
After the matter of the appeal in Rex w Fook
Gee had been disposed Of ms reported in last is-
sue. His Honor the Chief Justice took his seat
on the bench to hear the following matter.
Fook Gee VS. Ahlo exec ptions to the ruling
of the Chief Justice on Il motion for "A new trial.
The question was then raised whether Mr. JUS
tice Austin was disqualified from also hearing
the case. by reason Of his having been engaged,
before his elevation 10 the bench, as counsel for
the plaintiff. Mr.. Hartwell argued against the
supposed disqualification, but the Judge himself
declined to sit, on the ground that he had O pc
cuniary interest in the case, and that II was de-
sirable that the Judges should be wholly unbias-
ed. Mr.. Hatch for the defense, argued that the
motion for a new trial ought not to have been
granted. Mr.. Hartwell followed on the same
side. Mr.. Dole for plaintiff, said that If 1t was
shown that Fook Gee had paid his money in adj
vance for the 1872 men, he brought here and was
entitled to it back, there was no injustice in
granting a new trial. The Court took time TO
consider.
Before Mr.. Justice McCULLY.
julius Magnin, by Simon Magnin his next
friend VS. E. Furgie demurrer. Mr.. Davidson
for plaintiff. Plaintiff sued for a return OF "A pre-
MUM on an Insurance Policy, claiming it ON the
strength of an oral agreement. The point TO be
argued was whether snch oral agreement could
be set up to vary the terms of the written con-
tract. Judgement reserved.
Before the Full Court.
Robt. Briggs VS. j. r. Mills exceptions to the
ruling of the presiding Justice at the iast october
term. Mr.. Dole for plaintiff, Mr.. Bickerton for
defendant. Mr.. Bickerton asked that certain
afidavits which he had placed on the file DO
made part of his exceptions to the decision over
ruling the motion for a new trial. Mr.. Dole OBJ
iected the afhdavits imported new matter which
could not be taken into consideration at this
stage of the proceedings. The Court took time
to consider.
Friday, 18th.
Before Mr.. Justice McCULLY.
Rex VS. Fook Gee having opium in possession.
Appeal from the Police Justice OF Honolulu.
Mr.. Russell appeared for the defendant. Tn
evidence given was similar to that taken in the
police court, and Mr.. Russell argued that il did
not disclose any proof of the offense charged.
Fook Gee was arrested by the police in n room
where the latter believed opium 10 have been just
smoked, because of the odor prevailing, and in
which they also found an opium pipe still warm
from use. They found no opium on his person
or in the room itself, although they discovered a
box of the drug in n closet, in the yard at the
rear of the premises. TIE tenement was occu-
pied by others besides Fook Gee, and II was CIV
en- in evidence that another man besides Fook
Gee was in the room when the police made n raid
upon it. The jury brought in n verdict OF not
guilty.
CD. Stein vs. Gideon West malicious arrest.
Mr.. Hatch appeared for the plaintiff, Mr.. Dole
and NJ. Davidson for the defense. This case oc-
cupIed the Court all the afternoon, and the jury
after more than an hours retirement, brought IN
a verdict for the defendant. three jurors dissent
ing. Mr.. Hatch excepted to the ve.dict as com
trary to the law and the evidence.
Rex VS. A. D.. Citizens assault with a danger
Gus weapon. The defendant pleaded guilty.
Mr.. Preston said that he had been requested by
Mr.. McChesney, the gentleman who had been
assaulted, TO intercede with the Court for mercy
to the prisoner, the father Of the latter being a
very old friend. Sentence deferred.
Saturday, 14th.
b. II. Kahananui VS. j. Quincy, administrator
of E. X. Cluney deceased. Mr.. G.. B.. Kalaaukane
for the plaintiff, $. b. Dole for the defendant.
The plant was demurred TO on the ground that
it mixed up too forms Of action for trOver in ono
real and personal estate being mixed up also
on the ground it did not specify at what time the
demand had been made and refused, although il
was material that the claim should have been
made within six months after the administrator
was appointed. Mr.. Kalaaukane in reply, said
that the action was not for recovery of the real
estate, but for the value of his clients interest in
it. Decision reserved.
Rex VS. A. ID. Citizens. The Court sentenced
Citizens to two months imprisonment at hard la
Dor and to pay a fine of $3.50.