The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1886-10-29

was Ike that green light produced in
the glare Of it.
". A. Kinney, one of the counsel for
the respondents, was about to be exam
med respecting retaining witnesses and
certain conversation in connection there /
with
Mr.. Neumann objected to this course,
as no foundation had been laid for it.
The Court excluded the testimony.
Captain Sam, Of the Moi Wahine, de-
posed to what passed during a converse
ton between himself and Leiloa at the
farmers house. Witness asked him,
''How was it that you ran into the Moi
Wahine2 Did you not see her lights? ~
He then said, "Ae, did see lights on
the Moi Wahine." That was two weeks
ago. Leiloa was not intoxicated when
he came to the house He was given
a bottle Of gin, which he took away with
him, witness telling him he was satisfied
with his reply. In cross-examination
witness made a number of negative
statements, which went to show that he
had not attempted to influence wit
nesses.
2. Robinson was acting for S. A. Allen
during the latter's absence in San Fran
cisco. The question was put-Do you
remember the advice you gave Captain
Sam to see Leiloa?
The question was objected to and the
witness withdrawn.
Kaikaai, one of the crew OF the Moko-
Iii, reiterated the conversation between
himself and Leiloa when the DOwsett's
crew went on board his vessel.
When the boat came alongside the
question was put by witness, "Where
has this boat come from ?" Some one
replied, ''The Dowsett has sunk" Wit
ness said, 'Why have you been SO care
less, as to lose her. It's like losing
your tea or poi" They said they had
only seen the white smoke; that they
did not know anything about vessel
till she struck.
Mr.. Whiting noted exceptions to this,
as not being testimony in rebuttal. Ex-
ceptions were noted.
Witness continued-This conversation
was in presence of all the Dowsett's
crew. 1t was Leiloa's voice. Leiloa did
not say that the reason of the collision
was because the schooner had no lights.
Neither did any of the crew, in the pres
ence of LeilOa, give that reason. This
evidence was afterwards struck out. ]
Mr.. Kinney asked-Did LeilOa or did he
not say to you that on account of the
DOwsett's crew being Over-worked and
tired that that was the reason of the col
lision? Witness replied-In answer to
my questions when [ aaid to him, "How
did you come about losing your tea and
poi ?" and ''Why didn't you look out ?"
and "WhOse watch was pr Leiloa said,
at was my watch eve did keep a
lookout" but he did not say it was in
consequence of the crew being over
worked, sleepy and tired that the col
lision happened.
The case was then adjourned to g :15
this morning.
OCTOBER TERM-BEFORE PRESTON, J.
A. j. Cartwright vs.. Thomas w. Ev-
erett. Mr.. w A. Whiting for plaintiff.
On motion of plaintiff, it was ordered
that the case be continued until called up.
Leila p. Roderiquez VS.. Joseph Roder-
lquez, divorce. Hon. Paul Neumann for
plaintiff; Mr.. w. a. Whiting for. de-
fendant. Granted on the ground OF
adultery of defendant.
Haida VS.. Chun Lock, divorce. Mr..
Whiting for plaintiff; no appearance of
defendant. Granted on the ground of
desertion of defendant.
Kauhiololi VS.. Adolph Brueges, di
vorce. Mr.. A. P. Peterson for plaintiff /:
no appearance of defendant. Granted on
the ground of desertion of defendant.
STANDARDIZATION M'CULLY, J.
The King VS.. Enoch Fan, assault.
Mr.. A. Rosa for the Crown; Messrs.
Kinney & Peterson for defendant, who
! was acquitted and discharged.
The following cases were confined for
one week, viz: The King VS.. All Wing,
Patrick Ryce VS.. Mrs. Cornwell, Henry
Buch VS.. Anna Long, and John Brodie
/ VS.. James Holt, Jr.