The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1886-06-08

1886, and which they took, wrapped up in |
4 sack, out of the saloon door and |
put in their brake in the road, where the |
liquor was seized by Officer Treadway.
The statute prescribes that the retail
license shall not authorize the sale of
liquor to be consumed off the premises.
The counsel for defendant moved for
change of venue on account OF prejudice
OF Jurors against him, which was denied.
The jury acquitted defendant, three dis
senting. w A Whiting, John Richard
son and ]. W. Kalua for defendant; ".
A. Kinney assisted the prosecution.
7. Rex VS.. w c. Crook, a school
teacher, for assault and battery on a
Portuguese scholar by whipping him.
The jury, deeming the punishment rea-
sonable and necessary, acquitted de-
PENDANT The defendant conducted his
own defense.
8. Rex VS.. Noa, charged with larceny
Of horse and saddle After the jury
was sworn, the defendant pleaded guilty
and was sentenced to six months i'm
prisonment and to pay fine of $40 and
costs.
9. Henry VS.. Mary, divorce, on ground
of desertion. Partly heard and contin-
ued. Divorce granted the next day.
10. Rex vs.. Kekuanui, charged with
robbery OF a Chinaman at Kahului
Sandhills. Found guilty of an assault
with intent to rob, and the prisoner adj
mitted this. Sentenced to pay fine OF
800 and three months imprisonment at
hard labor J. Richardson for defend
ant.
II. Rex VS.. Kamaka Kanana, charged
with embezzlement of 5000, left with him
as storekeeper for the R. r. Co. to be
shipped to Honolulu to 4 Chinese firm.
No receipt was given, and the question
was whether the money was actually de-
posted with him. The jury acquitted
the defendant Rosa and Richardson
for prosecution j. w Kalua for de-
PENDANT.
u. Wong Amana vs.. f. Kaulana,
action of trespass. Appealed from MolO-
kai. No appearance for plaintiff, and
Judgment was rendered, ex parte, for
defendant.
Is. Rex VS.. Chas. Bolabola. Pleaded
not guilty to an indictment for burglary
committed ON yesterday. AS the foreign
jury had been discharged, the case was
continued to the December term at La
haina.
IA. Rex VS.. Henry Kawaikolu, charged
with burglary. Anolle pros. was entered,
as it did not appear that the defendant
had entered the house to commit a
felony.
Is. Rex VS.. Sam Hook, for larceny of
a horse. Defendant called three times
and did not appear. Bail bond forfeited
Judgment on motion to dismiss appeal
suspended until next term. Penalty of
bail bond to be retained by the Clerk
for three weeks and covered into the
Treasury unless sufficient cause for non
appearance be shown by affidavit.
16. Wailuka Sugar Co. VS.. Paini, eject
ment. Case discontinued. J. w. Ka-
lua for plaintiff w. A. Kinney for
defendant.
II. Pooiki & Kahele VS. Kealakua,
ejectment Verdict, each party to have
half the land. Both parties except to
the verdict. The Court set aside the
verdict and ordered a new trial. 1. w.
Kalua for plaintiff. w. A. Kinney for
defendant.
IS. A Enos < Co. VS.. Kwong, Lung &
Co., ejectment for $1,000 acre. Heard
by the Court without jury.
10. Huakini vs.. Noa, statutory
action to determine who shall pay
$3.50 pound fees and costs. De-
PENDANT had leased plaintiff his
wife's land, and repudiated the
lease and arrested the plaintiffs cattle,
giving him no notice. Defendant or
dered to pay pound fees, costs, etc.
Kinney for plaintiff. Kalua for defend
ant.
20. J. Kapohakimohewa VS.. j. Keku-
kamiko, action to recover $3.50, value Of
fish which defendant claims under ko-
nohiki right. 1t was admitted that sec
ton 389 of the Civil Code, prescribing
how the konohiki fish should be tabued,
had not been complied with. Judgment
for defendant.
81. VIM. Kamau VS.. Lila Laahiwa
Divorce granted on ground OF adultery.
%. Luika VS.. Frank Sears, libel for
divorce. Respondent not in the King
dom. Publication of summons ordered,
and case continued to next term.
90 Sarah Aunea vs.. T. P. Unea, libel
for divorce. As parties last lived to-
gether on Oahu, case transferred to su-
preme Court.
Kikau & Nika VS.. J. Kaluhena,
ejectment. Case continued to Deem
Der term, on condition of defendant pay
ing costs and expense of plaintiffs wit
nesses.
Court adjourned sine die in the even
ing of June 4, 1886.