The Hawaiian gazette., 1886-11-02
Supreme Court of the Hawaiian Islands.
In Banco. October Term, 1885.
kALUA ivy VS.. S. SELIG, ADMINISTRATOR OF
ESTATE OF AHUNA DECEASED.
BEFORE JUDD c. J. M'oULLY AND PRESTON j. J.
Opinion by WCULLTJ.

BEFORE JUDD c. J. M'CULLY AND PRESTON J. J.
Opinion by WCULLTJ.
Assumpsit-verdictf for the plaintiff
Upon exceptions to the verdict, as agains
the law and the evidence, and motion TO,
a new trial, the Chief Justice holding the
term, ordered new trial The plaintiff:
bill of exceptions to this order, setting
forth the evidence given in the case, an6
the instructions in law given to the jury
is the matter before the Court
The evidence shows that Ahuna, at a
date in 1884, went to the mother of the
plaintiff, then girl of fifteen, attending
school. In the evidence given by the girl
and her mother, the phraseology used, is
that, Ahuna wished to engage her to do
household and housekeeping work, such
as cooking, washing, sweeping rooms,
making beds, sewing. The girl and
her mother assented and shortly af-
ter went to the residence of Ahuna
! The mother at that time remained five
| days, lodging at Ahuna's, occupying a
bedroom by herself The plaintiff. the
first night, cohabited with Ahuna, and
continued this cohabitation, for the two
years, up to the day of his death. There
! is no evidence showing that she objected
to this in the beginning or at any time
afterwards. There is no evidence that she
was coerced or was deceived.
She testifies that Ahuna engG ged her
for long time; she didn't mention the
number of years; he said 1 was to live
number of years with him My mother
was paid for Ahuna's injuring me, when [
came to live with him, one hundred dol
lars"
The force of the whole evidence is, that
she voluntarily did what her mother, with
herself, had bargained that she should do
became Ahuna's mistress.
That she did become his mistress, and
lived in that character, bearing him one
child in his lifetime, is we believe not con-
tested by the plaintiff.
There is conflict of testimony as to the
amount of labor which she performed
The weight of testimony IN our view, sup
ports that she did not sustain the charac-
ter and do the work of servant: she
merely did what the wife of Ahuna might
have done.
Ahuna had no wife; the plaintiff was the |
only female on his premises; there were
several men servants, including cook
The contention of the learned counsel |
for the plaintiff, is that there was bona |
fde contract for labor service merely, and !
that the service was performed, and that |
Ahuna land his estate) could not be re-
ieved from his assumpsit by the after Sc
duction of the girl.
The proposition of law is right and is
not disputed. If the agreement of the
girl did not originally contemplate her be-
coming Ahuna's mistress, but was for
,o,o,oo, Co,.1-ioo o,,I C,1o1,
was performed, subsequent seduction /
So the Court charged the jury, that "a |
may, by any probability, facilitate an lille |
connection with the illegal transaction
ural but the other services cannot cover
up the fornication, if the substantial agree
ment was to live with him as mistress" |
The verdict of the jury was contrary to
the law and the evidence, unless it APP
clear of the immoral bargain
The jury was properly instructed that |
they could not in this action give the plain
tiff verdict in compensation for seduc-
ton.
LII view VI Inc 6N1ueuC6 given IL Is dD- |
parent that the jury disregarded the in
structions
There was no credible and sufficient
evidence to support a verdict upon the
only ground on which it could be given.
1t is transparent from the evidence of |
the plaintiff herself, that the original bar
gain was for her person, and we should
stultify ourselves to find any other conclu-
sion from the euphemistic language of the
plaintiff, or from the employment she oc-
cupied herself with.
We are of opinion that the trial Justice
might properly have ordered, if asked,
judgment non 05stante geredtct0
Upon the same state of facts the same
result must follow again, but the form of
our judgment must be, that the exceptions
are overTuled, verdict set aside, and new
trial is ordered.
1t is due to the learned Justice who pre-
sided at the trial, to say that the defend
ant, DESTROYS of closing the account of the
estate, and of getting the verdict of jury
on this claim, waived the objection to
minors sueing for wages.
Paul Neumann and w. A. Kinney for
plaintiff; S. B. Dole for defendant.
Honolulu, October 20, 1856.
DOSTERs, PROGRAMMES, HANGERS
Il -@,1, IA ffofa