The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1882-01-14

PauAhi Burrows snd John Burrows ~ KaiIiuIa-
ula ~eiectmsnt- Castle & Hatch for plaintiffs.
II. +. BickertOn for defendant. A disclaimer a.
20 part Of the land was put in by Nr. Bickertou.
The case occupied the court until a late hour and
tho jury after half an hours retirement brought
in a verdict dividing The land between plaintiff
and defendant This verdict vas not accepted.
tbs plaintiffs claim being good Tor all the land
OF for none At all, and II being then 3 P. IL. the
court adjourned, instructing the Jury 10 re-as-
semble the following morning.
FarDA4. 9Th;
wh<n the court having given further iustruc-
lions. thew after 90 minutes retirement brought
in q verdict for the plaintiff with 81 damages.
Mr.. Bickerton noted exceptions TO the verdict.
Il. NJ. Emma KaeleOnalsni IS Nawelu eject
ment. Mr.. Cecil Brown appeared for plaintiff
and put IL the title deeds Of the land. Defen-
dant's counsel then intimnted 20 the court that
his client instructed him that there were no
deeds IN existence. ard A. the deeds were now
produced be had no counter evidence 70 offer.
The Jury were therefore instructed to return a
verdict for the ~.iainsIf, and 10 assess the
damages, which after twenty minutes retirement
they hxSd a. $50.
LENA OK v. Mary h. Pahau IT all ejectm ent.
Mr.. HartVslI appeared for plaintiff and after
evidancs had been given fled a disclaimer a. to
damages. Mr.. Davidson for defendent claimed
a n0n-suit on the ground that possession by de
PENDANT has not been proved Nr- HuTtwell
replied that in defending the action for eiectmen.
ths other side had admitted possession He f1r-
ther contsnded that as the plaintiff claimed
undsr the same title as defendant, (as cO-tenantl,
possession by the latter was implied. His
Honor said that the mere service ON a person did
noe amount 10 proof of possession, unless the
service was made upon him on the premises III
question; also that IL had been the uniform Gus
ton and Prac6ce to prove defendtnt's possession
In any action for possession Of the premises.
His Honor however would not IN this case
grant the motion for nOn-suit, but would let the
case 90 10 ths Jury. Mr.. Davidson excepted To
this ruling. The defence was then proceeded
with. and adverse possession being dis
closed b. ths evidence MIR. Hartwell objected TO
any evidence Of that character the claim being
that defendant was only n tenant IN common.
The court ruled that the evidence be admitted !;
. co-tenant could not claim against an adverse
possession which extended beyond twenty years.
Thu jury brought in a verdict for the plaintiff
three jurors dissenting.
Kaupena ef 81. W NaOhO. In this case plain
tiff was allowed to file an amendment Of his
plant on paying costs and cOnsenting to an adj
iournment of the hearing until next term. Ar.
Davidson appeared for defendant,
SATURDAY. 18th.
The King vs. W.. II. Gibson. Argument on
the demurrer to the indictment for libel. (See
full report elsewhere in this issue.)
Rex VI VIM. Davis. Manslaughter /; Ton board
the steamer AMER Head.) The prisoner was
brought up for Judgment. Mr. Hartwell, who
had conducted the prosecution, addressed the
court. He said that it was no doubt difficult to
decide what punishment was suitable to this
case. Two objects were to be held in view III
punishment. One was that the penalty should
Be a. nearly as possible measured to the actual
guilt. In the present instance no one but the
prisoner himself could know to what extent he
was wrong. or criminal in intent, or by omission
of precaution. The other object OF punishment
was 10 act with q deterrent effect on society.
He felt for the prisoner, for his wife and children.
On the other hand he could not help regarding
tbs natural feeling of the cOuntrymen of the un-
offending man who had lost his life whilst
peaceably going about his work. As a matter OF
precedsnt he asked the court to hX a punishment
that should not be too low; and that considera-
tions OF Isniency should be left to the Executive
rather than taken into accout by the Judiciary
In the Indictment the Government went a. low
as il could. and in rendering their verdict the
furV went as low as they could. He hal nc
doubt, indeed he had been expressly assured
that If In course of time a showing were made to
the executive it would be very favorably con
sidered-
Mr.. Preston desired TO say a few words fol
the prisoner, who was. a stranger in n strange
land. who had a wife and family now IN q f9re
sign land entirely dependent ppgIain womld be v
but for the hoerayy He asked the court to :
4PsnnyIes. mere mercy He had been in 1
temper Jus jury had sent a memorandum to
i9.nsa saying that they had intended to
hmsfed to their verdict u recommendation {
} mercy No one could regret more than the r
risoner the unfortunate accident which had led >
D these proceedings. .
His Honor said lie had taken nu unusually !,
Sng time to consider his sentence and had given :
serious and anxious consideration. He had !
lso had the privilege OF comforting with his =
on the bench. No ore could feel u
reatar compassion and sympathy for the q
risonsr than he had. There was o distinction u
the offence Of which he hal Lycn found n
ui1ty and all other criminal offences known to e.
as Law. in that IL did not carry with IT the in p
Brence Of a DEPRIVED intent. H had before 90
am q recommendation to mercy signed by all II
~ Jury, and he accepted II fully rs If II had r
cen attached to the verdict. In one sense Of n
Ia word this recommendation could not i'm W
usncs him because his own mind was so te
set In that direction that his feeling on a
10 subject could not be rendered greater by 10
40 opinions or persuasions of others. The -
was not before the court without a "
and the fact that he had "A family =,
poks well presumptivoly for his character \ ~
rcng point on this matter was that II was an -
ien ease. He used the word alien in contra g
to foreigner. They, who were of for &c
On birth, although residents here, all called ia
foreigners. But in this case all the D'
concerned, the prisoner, the dead man tn
nj all the witnesses of the deed would III the :"
ndinary course Of things. have been IN "A few ia
ours beyond their jurisdictiOn. 1t was the ac- -
circumstance Of this ship being 1T our be
harves which had thrown upon the court the as
scsssitY of considering this sentence. Review I'm
q the matter in all Its bearings, he had come to te
q conclusion that the punishment must be GA
lprisonmsnt. In this country we had, mp to
8 present time, upheld Old-fashiOned ideas ro
,out the use of deadly weapons and killing ri.
cry far from Us be the disgraeeful laxity which -,
Vi characterized some of the Southern States ~
Ameriea or even that lesser degree of in "'
ference to human life which has prevailed III "n
and Che neighboring States. We cOuld eel
1t afford TO have 1t said that a man might kill col
lother with a deadly weapon and pay for 1t III -.
sh. In two cases only in which death had We
en- the result Of pure accident had that court bis
ade the penalty q fine. Giving the prisoner all in
o leniency he was able TO do, he must sentence pc
N to imprisonment with hard labor for nine ha
onths and to pay the costs of court. The ca.
nsideratiOn must come to all minds that the wa
mand that punishment be inflicted comes up he
I'm the man himself who lost a life. He had
,ated this case as he should if he had been deal ca,
2 with one of any other nationality.
VI Frank Davis. This prisoner was brought On.
for sentence. His Honor, addressing the
isoner, said "You have been convicted of e.,
ssEzuIt with a deadly weapons pistol 1t ~,
5 been shown that you had been drinking dur P@-