The Hawaiian gazette., 1884-04-23
supreme ccurt.

The attention of Judge Judd and foreign jury,
was occupied on the 10Th and 18th insts, by the
trial in the Supreme Court, of the claim for dam
ages made by the plaintiff against defendant, viz:
Plaintiff claims of defendant $500 as follows:
For cash drawn by defendant in excess of
his salary in 1882, as plaintiff S agent 800
For cash drawn in 1888 in excess of salary. LOCO
For commissions charged by defendant for
selling plaintiffs stock. 1000
Total. ..-.-....--.- fZY.SJu
II appeared in evidence that Mr.. Adams acted
as the Honolulu agent for the Oriental Telephone
Co.. Limited, of London, under an agreed yearly
salary of $500; that the Oriental Co. owned large
amount of stock in the Hawaiian Bell Telephone
Co. and that the chief duties of Mr.. Adams as
agent were to protect the interests of the Oriental
Co, as regarded this stock; that during 1882 and
discussions arose IN the Hawaiian
Bell Telephone Co., between Mr.. Adams as-ngent
of the London company, and the Honolulu stock
holders, eliminating in 1885 in the withdrawal of
a number of the Honolulu stock holders aud the
formation by them of an opposition company; that
Mr.. Adams claimed that he performed services Tor
the Oriental Company. in protecting their interests
in the contests with the Honolulu Stockholders,
which entitled him to greater compensation than'
his annual salary of $500 and in lSa2 drew draft
on the Oriental Company for Sl5OO as his salary
for 1882, which the Company paid under protestas
to the excess over $500, but they allow him $500
for the year in addition to his salary; that in 1888
Mr.. Adams acting under instructions from the
Oriental Co.. tried to sell their stock and IN No
vember of that year received cablegram from the
Company to sell the stock for 1000, London Bank
draft; that Mr.. Adams accordingly sold the stock
to Mr. James Campbell for 1000, or $4,000 and
deducted from that amount his commissions for
the sale, expenses and charges for extra services
during 1888, amounting to 81 20, and RENTED
to the Oriental Co. the balance 1 1850; that the
Company claimed that Mr.. Adams wss not entitled
to commissions on the sale OF stock as the transac
tod
San Francisco, and Godfrey Brown, acting as the
agent of James Campbell.
After the evidence was closed, Mr.. Dole ad-
dressed the jury for defendant followed by Mr..
Hartwell for plaintiff, and the Court charged the
jury in substance as follows
Gentlemen Of tie JTy:-One of the difficulties
incident to jury trial is that intricate questions
of law are presented, upon which the Court is
bound to express an opinion without preparation.
But if the Court is wrong, exceptions may be taken,
and the Court is always glad of an opportunity to
have its opinions reviewed.
In n civil case, the Jury are bound to take the
instructions of the Court as to the law; they are
Judges of the facts What contract means, the
facts being undisputed, is question of law. Here
the Court is bound to construe the contract.
The agency was assumed by Adams without any
express understanding as to compensation. The
legal result of all the correspondence put IN evi-
dence in the case is this-that Adams agreed that
his annual salary for regular services should be
$500, but it was left open what his compensation
should be for extra and unusual services. Adams
says in one letter. that he is willing TO accept 600
per annum In the letter of July Is, 1888 where
Adams says "a change must be made in our agree
ment," this means a change in the agreement for
$500 per annum for regular services. Meanwhile
he had drawn on the Company for $500. The
Company say they accept the draft as to 800 for
salary, but leave the question of further compen-
satiOn open for future settlement: later they say
that they will leave the question TO be settled after
the equity suit here is concluded.
Ny conclusion is that the Company did agree 10 pay
Adams for services that were extra. The account
of costs in the equity suit sent here By the Com
pany also confirms this. When this account was
presented for allowance, felt 1t was not proper to
allow the claim, far as expenses incurred by the
Company, outside of our jurisdiction were con-
cerned Ny view is, that you cannot consider that
the charge of 100 i'll that account for services of
Mr.. Adams is conclusive against the Company, but
it is in evidence to show that they did regard
Adams services as worth something extra: and this
is also shown by the fact that they did allow Adams
$500 extra for 1852.
charge you that you cannot give Adams lump
sum of $780, salary, for that wasnot the agree
ment: but you must consider what the extra ser
vices we're reasonably worth. Halls testimony on
this point is not exactly relevant, as the crcum
stances were not fully brought to his notice. You
have heard the difficulties Mr.. Adams experienced
as agent. He was doing his duty and defending
the interests Of his principals Hubbard should
more properly have been the object of the odiam
| of the Honolulu stockholders rather than Adams
| i 90 hot 10 ll6 OTullhI1 NOTh Vi all agent
such advising as TO dividends expenditures, etc.
for this is conclusiyely settled by the agreement
for salary of $500: the question is rs to the othe
work. You cannot gauge the value of the eItrJ
services. by the fees that would be paid to an at
torney for services 1t is difficult to settle the VALUE
of the services, in the absence of direct testimony
as TO what such services are worth.
As regards commissions, it is for you to say, i
the sale which effected of sos shares, the who'll
| of plaintiffs stock, is covered by the agency. II
! the agency extended TO the sale of these shares
| Adams is not entitled TO commission. II the salt
of the stock was fairly within the scope of hi
| agency, Adams cannot recover, even although tn,
principal took the matter out of the agent hands
but if it outside of the scope of the agent du
ties and there was a special intrusting of this new
| business to Adams, then he may be entitled {,
compensation, unless the contents of the cable
| gram cut him of.
| The Court must construe this cablegram. Ii in
dictates to the agent here that terms have beel
| agreed upon between the principal and the pur
chaser. 1.-The Court reads the cablegrani,) as fol
| lows: Sam Hubbard, San Francisco. Your
twenty seventh Write Adams that on receip
bank draft on London equivalent twenty thousant
| dollars will transfer our shares to purchaser
| Oriental The only difficulty in my mind is as t
| the words London bank draft The cablegrar
dictates the terms arrived at with the purchaser
that the agent must take not less than SO 600 frOu
the purchaser. Mr. Hartwell objects that the cab
| legram does not say so. am led to this vie'
| for other reasons. How could the Company,
Campbell to pay any more. ] cannot see ho'
Adams could have gone to the purchaser and sale
| 81 must have bank-draft on London for $50 0
| land my commissions and expenses" In othe
| words, take it that the words "Bank Draft o
London" must mean the way in which the none
| is to be RENTED, not that Adams should ask NOR
| than the cablegram authorized.
l believe the law to be this: that where there
an agency, the whole service must be performe
before the compensation is due. But there al
cases where an agent or broker may recover som
compensation, even although the whole service ha
not been performed. Crhe Court reads from Ev
ellis Evans Agency. pages 453, 45i, and note)
If you find that Adams had done all that wa
possible, in the way of effectinG the sale of til
stock, although the Company effected the sal
through Brown, and thus took the matter out {
the agents hands, the agent would still be entite
to commission.
think that in this case the proper instructio
is that if you find that the services are not fairl
within the scope of the agents authority, you ma
consider that he is entitled TO a commission for
much of the service is valuable to the plaintiff
The facts are for you: and the fact that the age1
has charged the commission does not show that
is entitled to it. 80
As regards the claim that the President of ii
Hawaiian Bell Telephone Company should be pal
by the stockholders of the Company, 1 think tn
is quite right, if he should be paid at all; but
you find that Adams took the presidency for th
purpose of fayoring the special interests of th
Oriental Company, then that is merged in h
agency; the fact of his being President does NJ
do away with his agency.
Adams is not entitled to compensation on m
agreement for salary of $780, but is entitled
a reasonable compensation for any extra service
and if you find that the sale of the stock was
matter outside he is entitled to retain reasol
able commission.
The statements of Adams to Widemann that
could not get any commission, are not conclusiv
they only show that he had not been able to g
any. Htttt I la-
The jury after an absence of over an hour r
turned with verdict for plaintiff for $500, alloy
ing Mr.. Adams $500 extra for his services in 1SS
and 500 commission on sale of stock.
AS Hartwell Esq. and W. X. Austin Esq al
peared in behalf of the plaintiff, and s. b. Dole Es
appear ed for the defendant.
YMC.A.
The regular yearly meeting of the members
the Y NJ G. A. was held on the evening of II