The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1886-03-16
Il the SHpreHs Court sE the Hawaiian
IslEzGS-Iz BAaco. JRaz1-y Tern 1856
L. EIElEESScENErpE Arlu-E OF ". IIAR-
BOTTLE vs. Wr--rAN kALAEEAC.
aEz0aa =rD1- Cd ngrrLL1 ASD rzzsrcs, !. J.


ngas5gs gf 1ts Cgto-i By Preston. =
Tins case comes Up ca i bill Of ezreptious to
the rulings Of the Chef Justice ca the trial Of
the action before 4 mixed Jury AZ the Inst De-
,ceer Tern
The action : L trvver. 4nG : brought by
the administering CT the ss.1te u william
EIrbcttls deceased, f1c the wrongful ccnysr-
slcu CT cue szpcess carriage or hack. Of the
yI.re Of $3.50, II the lifetime Of Plaintiffs IL
tssrlts- A Second ccunz alleges conversion,
SINCE the Ir.sst1se's death. Of four horses. four
sets cf harness, ous express carriage and three
certain pruuLSSgry notes fer SUITS amounting
n tie whois 20 StzQG
From the testimony IL ruueargd that cue
express carriage Ind three horses, parr Of the
property claimed BY the plaintiff, were sold
CT taken BY the defendant, who married the
Eg-cE Of the l1Ezs-1se-
I've Ct the prCuissCry notes. Gee for $500
ard the ether tur SIG6, were made bvCrg AIg.
II tLvCC Of the Iu.ssta-s's wife. and PAYABLE q,
Der order during the life Of the intsstats and
a. hls express direction, and j1dzueuE WIS
obtained b The defendant and his wife l.-.lfnst
the maker, after the death Of the fntss.a.s.
The whole lmcTaE vas not recovered, bat the
sulE vas compromised By AI1 payirS the de-
ssnt41t part gf the amount. S245. The Gun
s1t=razIcn tcr the note for $500 vas alleged
b the defendant 20 have been that 1uouns
.sEE % AlC, $50 Of which vas alleged to have
been the private ucaey cf Mrs EarbottIs ari
$50 the money Of the I1tasr1.e
Il vas also cIIiusd that the carriages and
hcCses were the private property Of Mrs Elr-
1oGrler Il being alleged tEas they we're uur-
Chased - her. cut Of moneys derived from the
sale CT and belonging 70 her. and from rents
ana Receipts fer the 1ze Of the carriages. The
lutzstlte WIS 1et-rIften and had beec 50 fJ-
many years, and there vas some evidence that
money earned BY the hire Of the expresses vas
pdid &c hin
Counsel for the tsfsndl1t asked the Court
% direct TIE Jury tatg. 1li1.)
al That uarriags does not vest chooses IN
ledea Of the VIE Il the husband Unless he
snail d some act during cuyerturg 20 auurc-
pirate them Il the husband dies before doing
% they remain the property Of the wife,
4cEa1l reduction % possession By bus-
band cf Wis ch0ses ia acton, Is necessary
% oar TIE EIte's right ct survIVurship.T
y 41ch iustrucElr1s the Court refused Ent
charged the Jury (ilts- aiil-l
al yUg find that thcss hacks etc u.r.
bcughs with moneys received from her n .
in1astI-e's wIfe) I1nds, and from the sarnfro.
Il her horses and carriages subsequently,. vSu
all ind them % BE the property ct her b1s-
band. Anything IN her Possession whether
bought With her 1Un or her husband : Money
reicngs % him and Il his own property and
gees % als administrations Although The note
vas made 70 the wife, IL was the husbands
money a1d tel0rEz % hrs estate ANY uCtg
given CT payable T. HIrbortle's wife. execute!
during her euyerturgs wls the property CT her
a1snanrs and SINCE his death the property Of
the administrator Ct HIrbuttIers estats.T
Io winch AMI ether Instructions (which II
Z un1eczsszr- @ refer 60 herzJ and to the re-
tuzlI 20 direct Is requested, tie defsntsnt h
hlz counsel duly e1rspts,i and such exceptions
were allowed
The exceptions were argued 90 the IgEh fav
CT February last b. 5 B. Dole fer the de-
f=1dInt and C. v. 4shf7ri far the uIlfutfE
The tcll1EIug authorities Eerg referred 70
b tEfsuI1nE's counsel
StiIualsr's Domestic ReIatit1ns. 1881 ItTsg
Hzssl0chsr Is Ez'rs Ct Rsbtusou. 3 H1w
: ksut's Conn, us, uotzc C.
: Leighis NIsi Prgz, IIsg
Estate Of Kinds. Fhar-
A ". PisrcE s. Co. -. Briggs e a. Hlw.
fss.
Gat=r1 " Hlfeisy, 8 Nses- and Wsr.. AZ.
ScarpeiLiai w. 4theson- : O. B. ~, and he
submitted tIat the mites we're ciuses II aetisu-
and tilat tie intsstlte mt having reduced them
lnta p'sssessIcn tAeE became tbs pecpsrtv If
aiz We after hiz decrease, AMI thaz the o5her
Articles Of personal property, having beso
purchased vith her ON money they became,
her eva separate estate.
O. v. ASHFORD far The plaintiff cIzIned thai
Notwithstanding the prsnissary mites we've
maae payable % The wife they were ia fl-t
the property q the intsataEe, and rEa- rb.
Possession b. the wife CT the natss and sCher
er1pe-tg vas the possessiou Of the aasband
The Iury gave their verdict fou= dissenting
t1F tue ptllHtiE- and assessed the damages
az follows