The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1882-10-21
SUPREME COURT.
CRIMINAL CASES.
Monday, October I'd.
Before His Honor the CHIEF JUSTICE

Before His Honor the CHIEF JUSTICE.
Rex VS. CT. b. Kalaaukane; adultery Ap-
peal from the Police Justice of Honolulu. HIS
tx. E. Preston, Attorney-General, for the Crown,
Mr.. Russell and Kalaaukane for the defence Inc
testimony having been heard, Mr.. k~alaaukane
addressed the jury in his own defence. his
speech, which was fluent and earnest, occupied
80 minutes in delivery, but failed to carry con-
viction to the minds of the jurymen: Mr. fres-
ton made a forcible reply and His Honor sum
med up at great length. After a fe" minutes
retirement the jury brought in a verdict OF
guilty, three jurors dissenting. The sentence
was a fine of 500 and costs.
Emmeline Giles VS. Henry Giles; libel Tor dl-
vorce on the ground of desertion. Mr.. Hartwell
appeared for the hbellant. The Marshal made
return to the summons that he was unable to
find defendant within the Kingdom. The case
was therefore, on motion, continued till next
term, and the statutory advertisement OF the
summons was ordered.
Rex vs. Paiataia; manning. The prisoner
pleaded guilty and said that, being drunk he did
not know what he was doing ut the time. His
honor sentenced him to be imprisoned at hard
labor for nine months and to pay a fine of one
dollar.
Rex VS. Kanaeo; burglary. The Attorney-Gen-
eral for the Grown, Mr.. Austin Whiting for the
defendant. After a few minutes retirement the
Jury gave a unanimous verdict of guilty. kanaeo
was sentenced to nine months imprisonment at
hard labor and to pay a fine of $50, with costs
taxed at $40 So.
TUESDAY, OctOOer Oh.
Rex VS. Nahi and Kamaka; stealing a COW. APP
peal from the District Court of Koolaupoko.
The Acknowledgement for the Crown. Mr.. Rus
sell for defendants. The case having been heard
the jury retired at a quarter to three pm, ana
did not bring up a verdict TILL haif-past nVe
when, by a majority of nine to three they de-
clared the prisoners guilty. They were each
sentenced to imprisonment at hard labor for
one year.
Wednesday, October 18th.
Rex VS. All Fong ais. All Fawn; having opium in
possession. Appeal from Police Court. The At
torney-General for the Crown, Mr.. w. X. Castle
and W. o. Smith for the defendant. After the
case had been heard Mr.. Castle asked His Hon
or to give certain instructions to the jury, which
His Honor declined to do. Mr.. Castle excepted
to this ruling The jury returned a verdict OF
guilty; three jurors dissenting. Mr.. Castle then
excepted to SO. m :ch of His Honor's charge as
stated that, ''the smoking of opium is not ex-
plicitly an offence, but its possession Is SO oy
our statutes, so 1 charge you that If you believe
from the evidence that any quantity OF opium
was found in the possession of the defendant for
the purpose of smoking, you will convict the de-
fendant." The learned counsel also excepted to
the verdict as against law and evidence. bis
Honor confirmed the sentence appealed against.
viz: A fine of $50 and one months Imprison-
ment; costs $57.S5.
Rex VS. Kun Sang alias All Pau; larceny of
money. The Acknowledgement for the Grow,
Mr.. Russell for defendant; the defe"~ Sousn'
to show that the charge was ~-oonspiracy 70 ue-
fraud Kun Sang Of. money wnicn nau oe1n
given TO him. The jury did not believe IN the
s.ininred innocence" of the prisoner and
nromntlv returned a unanimous verdict OF
guilty, He was sentenced to three years I'M
prisonment and a five Oh I'D
CIVIL CAUSES.
Wednesday, October 4th.
Ramona ct Il VS. Mono eyectmeht; M
udneSai for plaintiffs, Mr.. Davidson for defend,
ant. This was tsGe%sS-o2n9Iliai . = 3 ~ N
occupied the whole of the day IL
the iury after IA retirement OF two hou'
half returned a verdict for the plaintiffs, thiee
Jurors dissenting, .
Thursday, October 5th.
Kaolulo Ell al. VS. Kapouo ejectment. Mr.
Castle for plaintiffs. Mr.. Bickerton for the de
Tense. After hearing the case, the Court oil
rected the jury to find a verdict Tor the deitnd
ant on the ground that although the lease pro
duced by plaintiff contained a covenant that thu
lessee would take good care of the premises dur
ing its term, it was not stipulated IN the docu
ment that failure to fulfil this covenant should be
followed by n forfeiture of the lessee's holding
Any injury done to the property or accrulnG
through defendants negligence might be made
the ground of an action for damages, but there
cOuld not be forfeiture except under an express
stimulation. His Honor further said that the
lease was not forfeited through non-payment OF
rent as there was no evidence that the rent last
fallen due had ever been asked for by plaintiff
A verdict was returned accordingly. Mr.. Castle
excepted to His. Honors ruling.
h. Kepohoni VS. Wahilani k, Administrator OF
the Estate of Hama deceased. Assumpsit Mr..
Hatch for plaintiff, Mr.. Davidson for defenda t.
A verdict for the plaintiff for S34 was returned.
Friday, October 9th.
Alohikea k VS. Beniamina ejectment. MIR.
Bickerton for plaintiff, Mr.. A. 5. Hartwell for de-
PENDANT. Among the documents put IN by PLAIN
tiffs' counsel was a deed from Pauelua to Alohl-
kea. Mr.. Hartwell objected to this on the ground
that the evidence had shown that Pauelua was
never Gin possession " of the land and a deed
made by a party out of possession Is Invalid.
The Court ruled against the objection, and MIR.
Hartwel excepted to the ruling. About . P. M,
tie Jury. being unable to agree upon a verdict
after between four and five hours consideration
were discharged.
Monday, October 9th.
Mcclure VS. Briggs. In this case His Honor
l L. l..:-:a, o.. u The -lafanlant,S nlea of