The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1882-08-12

gether, and were not separated. aud had children.
FIom this the presumption would be that Moe
honua was the legitimate son Of Napua and Ke-
aweamahl; and His Honor would hold that al
though there was evidence from which il might
be inferred that Moehonua was the son of Al
kanaka, that at all events he was not his legiti-
mate son, but if his son at all was i~llegitimate,
and SO. under the law, the claimant could not
recover as his heir on these grounds. His Honor
directed the jury to find a verdict against the
claim OF His Majesty and in favor of the heirs
OF the estate" Verdict accordingly to which
Mr.. Hatch excepted.
Wednesday, July 10Th.
]. II. Baranaba VS. Mohaokalaai *. This was
an appeal from the Intermediary Court Mr..
Hatch for plaintiff; Mr.. Bickerton for defendant.
A verdict for defendant was returned.
d. b. Ruth Keelikolani vs. Aon. ejectment.
Defendant having failed to appear or reply, a
decree was granted.
b. n, Ruth Reeiikolani vs. Al Tuck. The
same.
Kaupono ct al. VS. Naoho. Motion for a new
trial argued and submitted.
Kamoku (wJ ct al. vs. Kalaaula et al. ejectment.
Messrs. W. R. Castle and John Russell for
plaintiffs; Mr.. Hartwell for defendants. When
the plaintiffs case was made NJ. Hartwell moved
the Court to instruct the jury to return a verdict
for defendants. The Court declined, and the
trial was proceeded with, ending in a verdict for
plaintiffs, three persons dissenting. Mr.. Hart
well excepted to the verdict.
Thursday, July Goth.
TIL King VS. Lee Choy; attempt at arson. This
was the case which occurred at Koolau and in
view of the prisoners undoubted insanity the
Attorney-General entered a n0le proseqUI.
The King VS. All kOna. Selling spirituous Ii
quOrs without a license, The accused was ac-
quilted. MIR. Hartwell was counsel for the de-
Tense.
The King VS. Kun Ian See; having opium in
possession. Mr.. Davidson for the defense. The
jury returned a verdict of not guilty, one juror
dissenting.
Friday, July 2lst.
CD. Stein vs. Gideon West; Action for dam
ages for malicious arrest. This was a new trial
of the case and resulted in a REPETITION of the
former verdict, which was in favor of Mr.. West.
Two jurors dissented.
Fook Gee VS. L. Ahlo; an argument on a plea
in bar was taken ana decision on the matter re-
served.
Saturday, July 22nd.
j. Kaiokaili VS. Abikaila; divorce. This case
was heard on Sth July. Mr.. Kalua for libellant
now produced certain papers required by the
Court and a decree was granted.
J. Mcclure VS. Robert Briggs; Al. Cartwright
garnishee. Assumpsit. Mr.. Hartwell for PLAIN
tiff; Mr.. S. B. Dole for defendant. The parties
waived their right to a jury. After this case had
been fully heard, the Court adjourned for the
noon recess, and on its resuming Mr.. Hartwell
discontinued the suit.
Monday, July oath.
Henry Cornwell VS. Board of Education. Mr..
HartweII and Mr.. Hatch for plaintiff; His Elk.
the Attorney-Genera Mr.. E. Preston for the
Board of Education. This was a suit to recover
damages for being deprived of certain lands
which, along with other lands, were sold at u
public sale held by order of the Board, which
lands were subsequently found not to be the
property of the Board, but to belong to the Es-
tate of the late Moehonua. Documents and maps
having been put in and the witnesses for the
plaintiff heard, the Acknowledgement moved for
n non-suit on the grounds: 1st, that plaintiff
himself knew the number of acres and he should
have asked to have contract rescinded, and 2nd,
that there was no warranty. Mr.. Hartwell urged
that to ''give in fee simple" implies q warranty,
and quoted Il number of American cases III sup
port of his argument. Mr.. Preston excepted to
this ruling. After calling the Secretary of the
Education Board, Mir. Preston closed his case
and asked the Court to direct the jury to find a
verdict for the defendant. This the Court de-
clined to do, and without leaving the room the
jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff; damages
81, 800. MIR. Preston excepted to the verdict.
Antonio Manuel VS. HOllister and Parmalee
ejectment. Mr.. j. NJ. Davidson, for plaintiff
Mr.. r. f. BickertOn, for defendant. Plaintiff
had let certain premises to defendants and had
not granted them the right to sublet. Neverthe-
less they let two rooms, part of the premises to
some Chinese, on which ground the plaintiff
sought to turn them out. The letting of the
two rooms was admitted by defendants counsel,
who moved for a non-suit on the ground that
plaintiff had not made out his case: LIST. Because
renting part of the premises was not equivalent
to a subletting, as to which the learned counsel
quoted Johnson's Reports II, p. &c, and 8 Ha-
waiian Reports, p. 1877; and End: Because before
they could be ousted. defendants must be shown
to have parted with the legal estate, and they
had only parted with Il prriiJn of it. The
Court. refused to order Il nonsuit and Mr..
Bickerton excepted to the ruiinl. The defend
ants case was then proceeded with. In the
course of il Mr.. Bickerton desired TO tender the
evidence of Mr.. t. Lucas to show the condition
of the premises when the defendants rented
them and the improvements made by them since
that dat. Ih- (thu~f 1aclHal that ..finln " m
these poi.tS WAS not important, to which ruling
Mr.. Bickerton excepted. A ter "a short retire
ment, the jury brOugh. in II verdict for the de-
PENDANTS, three jurors dissenting. Mr.. David
son excepted TO His Honor's charge to the jury
and particularly to the statement that from the
circumstance that the plaintiff had passed the
premises and had seen them occupied by Chi
nese, if he did not know that the premises were
sublet, he ought to have known il and that
after that plaintiff had received rents from the
defendants through his agent. Mr.. Dayton.
Tuesday, July 25th.
Mele HOlelua ct al. VS. Keoni Kaupu eject
ment. In this case Mr.. Dole moved that a new
trial be granted, stating that his only ground was
that the verdict was contrary to law and the
evidence. 1t was deemed desirable that the
argument should be taken before the Fnll
Court and His Honor denied the motion pro
forma and Mr.. Dole appealed.
Kalaeokekoi VS. D. Kahanu ejectment. Ex-
actly similar proceedings took place in this case
as in the previous one.
Jose Antonio Santos vs. Samuel Kaeo; eject
ment. Jury waived. Mr.. w. o. Jones for
plaintiff; Dir. J. NJ. Davidson for defendant.
The case was argued and submitted and the
Court took time for consideration.
Wednesday, July &c.
The King VS. A. Buchanan gross cheat in
first degree. The particulars of this case were
reported L at the time of Buchanan's being COM
mitted for trial, After q retirement of a quarter
of an hour the jury found the prisoner guilty,
one juror dissenting. The Court sentenced the
prisoner to a fine of $50 and costs.
Mamauea ct al VS. Chun See Lin and Leong
Wing ct al ejectnent. Mr.. Hartwell for plain
tiffs, Mr.. Cecil Brown for defendants. Verdict
for defendants, three jurors dissenting. The
usual exceptions to the verdict were noted by
plaintiffs counsel.
Friday, July %.
None of the counsel being ready with their
cases. the Court adjourned till next day.
Saturday, July %.
Before a Full Court.
III. r. Macfarlane Ell al vs. Thomas Spencer and