The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1889-04-22
FROM M. TROMpSON'S DIGEST
OF HAWAIIAN SUPREME
COURT DECISIONS.
PROBATE OF WILL,

PEuNIIsoRY NOTE.
As between the maker and the
payee of u promisory uote, fail
ure of consideration may always be
shown by parol or other evidence,
in defence to an action upon the
note.
Grimes VS.. Walker, /, Haw. 1G.
n bona tide holder of negotia-
BILE note, TO whom it was assigned
for valuable consideration before
it was due, is entitled to recover
against the maker, Notwithstanding
he may have paid the amount of the
note to the original payee and this,
Notwithstanding the holder may
have obtained the note from one
who obtained the same by theft or
robbery. Pelly VS.. Nicholson |
Haw. IL; Grimes ct al. VS.. Walker,
Ib. 16.
Plaintiff recovered the amount Of
three promisory notes, endorsed to
him by the defendant without re-
course, on the ground that at the
time of the Endorsement the defend
ant represented the maker as being
solvent, well knowing that he was
in fact insolvent. Martin VS.. Mont
gomery, ! Haw. 81.
1t is immaterial whether the ex-
preston of "value received" be in
serted in Il promisory note or not.
The law implies, from the nature OF
the instrument, that it is for value
received.
Lathrop VS.. kamakak ehau, l
Haw. 93.
In case of Il negotiable note, the
execution of which is attested by
witnesses who are without the juris-
diction of this kingdom, it is sutli-
cent for the plaintiff to prove the
handwriting of the maker, or the
handwriting of the witnesses, or at
least one Of them, where there are
several.
Bullions VS.. Brothers & Co., l
Haw. 209. And so as TO the eXecu-
ton of other instruments. Ib. see
"Agent ot Company"
PUNISHMENT OF sEAMEN.
The master may intict punishment
Oh a seaman for disobeying his law
full commands; but the punishment
must be such as is reasonable and
necessary under the circumstances
of the case; and if cruelty is exer-
cised, or if the punishment is gross
ly oppressive and disproportioned
10 the offence, the master becomes
trespasser, and will be liable to
the seaman in an action for dam
| ages.
a master may imprison . seaman
in foreign Jail, when there is 4
positive necessity for the peace or
safety of the ship that the offending
party should be removed to place
of safe keeping on shore. Clack
VS.. Jaeger, Haw. 1870.
A charge Of general bad treat
ment. made by a seaman against the
master, cannot be sustained upon
the vague statements of some of
the crew that the master was
"cross," or pretty harsh," OF
"rather domineering."
In case of disobedience, disres-
pectful, or disorderly conduct, the
master may lawfully correct those
under his command, in reasonable
manner; but the master must be
careful in the exercise of his power
and not make it a preteXt for cruelty
or oppression. Edwards VS.. Scott
| Haw. 1873.
RESISTING AN OFFICER.
Where an officer is resisted in The
due and proper execution of hi
office, he may repel force by force
and he will be justified in SO doing
even if death ensue; yet he ought
not to come to eXtremities upol
every slight interruption, nor with
out reasonable necessity. Gaolers
like other ministers of justice, ar
bound not to exceed the necessity o
the case in the execution of thei
official duties.
Rex VS.. Sherman, ! Haw. 88.
RIGHT OF WAY,
The continuous and unmoleste,
use of way since the year l84l, t.
Sept. 1855, was held sufficient t,
create right of way by prescrip
tion.
Rookie VS.. Nicholson, Haw 2S3
SCHOOL TAX.
Held, that the Act of 1851, i'm
posing special school tax upol
foreigners, and persons of foreig
percentage, is not unconstitutional
Naone VS.. Thurston, Haw. 220.
sEAMEN, THEIR RIGHTS, DUTIES, ETC
Seamen in the whaling servic
who receive as wages certain pro
portion, or lay, of the ships catch