The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1882-07-15

/ ut AbOnEut "a lAA0 = ANA@NNA ~
piled with, although If counsel objected be would
not order 1t so. After another retirement Of an
hour and a half. the jury returned n verdict OF
not guilty, three dissenting.
Rex W. Mahiau, W Manning. Mr.. Brown
called four witnesses to substantiate tho charge.
Mr.. Nawahi appeared for the defendant. Verdict
not guilty, one juror dissenting.
Thursday, 9th.
Rex VS. Puahiki, k Larceny in the second
degree. After the jury bad been empanelied. 1t
appeared that the principal witness IN the case
had not arrived from Waialua. and the Deputy
Attorney General obtained leave % enter a NOTE
pr0Sigue.
Rex VS. j. wailama Selling spirits without n
license-appeal from the Police Court. Naiiama
is the man who, when this charge was heard
before the Police Justice on 23rd May, confessed
that he made his living by gambling. The
defence was, that Paele was drunk, lost hu
money by gambling, borrowed more from War
lama lost that. and then, because Wailama
would not lend bin any more, made this charge,
which he offered to withdraw II some OF bis
losiugs were returned 10 him. Mr.. kalua APP
peared for Wailama. The jury returned a YER
dict Of not guilty. three Jurors dissenting.
Friday, 18th.
Kaupono k Ct al. vs. Naoho k Ejeciment.
Messrs. j. l.. Knulukoa and j Russell appeared
for plaintiffs, and Mr.. Davidson for defendant.
This case resulted 10 a verdict for defendant,
three jurors dissenting. Mr.. Kaulnkoa excepted
to the verdict, as against law and evidence.
During the trial, Mr.. Davidson noted several
exceptions to His Hcnor's rulings.
Saturday, sth.
Emma Wilhelm vs. +. Wilhelm Libel for
divorce, on the ground Of desertiOn. Decree
granted. Mr.. Davidson appeared for the Ii
belant.
Assei VS. waheo Asset W Libel for divorce, on
the ground Of adultery. After hearing the evil
dence, the Court granted a decree. Mr.. J. L.
Kaulukou for libellant.
W. 5. Lokai VS. Ane Lono Libel for divorce,
on The ground Of desertion and adultery. Decree
granted. Mr.. S. w. Mahelona for libelant.
w. X. Awihi vs. Mary Smith Libel for
divorce, on the ground Of desertiou. Decree
granted. Mr.. j. w. Kalua for libellant.
Monday, 10th.
Mele Halelua and Apai, c. ~. VS. Keonl
Kapu, k; eIectment. This Was u claim for
an undivided half interest I'm land described
in Royal Patent No. 7l67. Mr.. Davidson
for plaintiffs, Mr.. Dole for defendant.
When the plaintiffs case had been heard
Mr.. Dole moved for a nonsuit on the
ground of misjoinder, Maria Apai not be-
ing aware that she was "A party TO the suit,
but the Court was of opinion that there was
no ~misjoinder. Defendants case was then
proceeded with, and occupied the Court till
after 5 pm. The jury retired at a quarter
to six, and after twenty-five minutes de-
liberation returned a unanimous verdict i'm
favor of the plaintiffs for the land claimed
and S75 damages. Mr.. Dole filed exceptions
to the verdict.
<ADtg We W - w lAhllrOns Albtl ~ lNOlG
on the ground Of desertion. \ decree was
granted. +. NJ. Hatch for libellant, J. Rus
sell for respondent.
Tuesday, 18th.
Rex VS. Joe Maka, larceny. Mr.. Holoka-
hiki for defendant. Mr.. Cecil Brown,
Deputy Acknowledgement, conducted the
prosecution. No witnesses were called for
the defence, but defendant made a state
ment. After a short retirementthe jury
returned q verdict Of guilty, one dissenting.
| MIR. HOlOkanlki noted executions to the
verdict.
Mahoe VS. Puka and J. y. Paekuli. New
trial, This case involves questions as to
who are the legally elected officers of a GER
tain hui, and the suit is to recover the
books and funds Of the same. Mr.. Bicker-
ton for plaintiff; Mr.. Dole for defendant.
After the jury had been empanellcd Mr..
Dole submitted that the Court had no juris-
diction, the matter being one OF partner
ship. He thought the proper course was
for plaintiff to apply for an Injunction.
Mr.. Bickerton argued that this was no com
mon co-partnership, and referred TO the
rules of the hui. The Court decided that
the hui was a special partnership, with
officers, one of whom was to have the GUS
tody Of books and papers, and that such
officer could bring an action to obtain
possession Of them. Mr.. Dole excepted 70
the ruling. The case was then heard,
and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff,
one juror dissenting.
Wednesday, 18th.
Kalaeokekoi VS. ID. Kahanu; ejectment.
New trial. Mr.. Kaulukou and Mr.. Dole
for plaintiff. Mr.. Davidson for defendant.
When the deeds in this mattsr were put I'm,
the Court ruled that the original Royal
Patent then produced conveyed the land
described in award No 62b to Kalaeokekoi
for Kalakini, w, and that made the heirs
of KaIakini the owners of the land I'm
question. Accordingly the jury were in
structed to find "A formal verdict for the de-
PENDANT. Mr.. Dole excepted to the ruling
of the Court and to the verdict.
ID. Kahakalau VS. LeOpOloa, k; ejectment;
Mr.. Cecil Brown for plaintiff Holokahiki
for defendant. Verdict unanimous for plain
tiff for one undivided half Of the land
claimed and for 81 damages. Mr.. Holoka-
hiki excepted TO the verdict, also against
a ruling of the Court that the plant was
good, although the land referred to was not
set out therein by metes and bounds.
Thursday, 18th.
KapeIa, k, st. al. vs. Hoohoku; assump-
sit. The Attoruey-General, His Elk. Ed.
Preston, for the plaintiffs, Mr.. Nawahi for
defendant. The proceedings taken before
Judge Lyman in the estate OF Nahala, k,
deceased, were offered as evidence by
plaintiffs counsel. Mr.. Nawahi said that
the whole estate Of Nahala bad been settled
up and divided among the heirs who are
plaintiffs in this suit and who were also
present at the time Of the settlement, as
scented To the division and cOncurred in the
discharge Of the administration Mr.. Pres
ton would consent TO the discharge of the
jury if the question were reserved for the
Court in Banco; as the matter was one Of
law and would certainly go up to the full
Bench in the end. The Court under the
power given in Section S34 of the Civil
Code, reserved the point for the full Court
in Banco; explaining TO Mr.. Nawahi that
If the decision Of the Banco Court were
against him his client would nave to pay
1 the amount claimed.
Pihaua, k, VS. Pua k, at al ejectment.
Mr.. Russell for plaintiff Mr.. Hatch for de-
PENDANT. Plaintiff claimed as heir Of one
/ Wahie, but defendants counsel produced
the will of Wahie, and the records Of the
Probate Court, by which all the property
passed to K~umuhonua, from whom de-
PENDANTS purchased il. The Court therefore
directed the jury to return a verdict for de-
PENDANTS. Verdict accordingly.
PaulO VS. David Malo ejectment. Mr..
W. r. Castle for plaintiff and Nr. Bicker-
ton for defendant. This case was partly
heard, and then the Court adjourned to