The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1889-03-13
HAWAIIAN LAW,
Extracts from Col. Thompson's Digest
or Supreme Court Decisions.

AsAAAt+'A7 iApiA WI AhhIi llsbil DAstsA
OF supreme Court Decisions.
Extracts are given below, from NJ.
Digest Of Hawaiian Su-
preme Court Decisions. The plan Of the !
work is excellent, and such as to enable |
the layman, as we'll as the lawyer, TO see !
where and how any point OF law has
been decided by the court, as readily as
a word and its meaning can be found in
Webster's Dictionary, or Bouvier's Law
Dictionary, and the work will also illus
trate many points Of pleading aud prac
tice:
CONFESSIONS OF GUILT.
Extra judicial con fessions of guilt
should be received with great caution;
but ii made voluntarily and deliberately,
without any inducement OF hope or fear,
they are entitled to much weight.
The confession of one cOnspiratOT,
made subsequent to the accomplishment
OF the common enterprise, is not admis-
sable in evidence against any one but
himself. Rex vs.. Marks q Butler,
Haw. 40.
CONSPIRACY.
Every fraudulent combination, mutual
understanding, or concerning together OF
two or more, to do what Is obviously and
directly wrOngiully Injurious to another,
is a conspiracy. 1t is not necessary to
prove a direct concert, the jury may infer
1t from the facts. Rex vs.. Anderson ct
al, l Haw. IL. See confessions Of
guilt"
CONTEMPT.
A Justice Of the Supreme Court, at
chambers, will not interfere, on a writ OF
habeas corpus, with the commitment
for contempt made by a Police Justice,
in a matter within his jurisdiction, and
while he acts within the scope OF his
authority. In re Webster, l Haw. 56 +;
see "Habeas Corpus"
CONTRACT.
A strict compliance with the terms OF
a contract is generally necessary to en-
title either party TO enforce 1t against the
| other; but, if the noncompliance does
not affect the essence OF the cOntract-as
! il it be broken in respect OF time or mode
Of its performance, when neither time nor
mode OF performance were essential con-
sideration-relief viii be granted. Cobb
VS.. Makee ct al, Haw. 81.
However inartiicial or untechnical the
manner in which an agreement is drawn
| up, equity will give effect to the real in
| tentions of the parties, as gathered from
! the objects of the instrument and the
| circumstances OF the case. Lathrop VS..
| Wood, Haw. II.
| CONVEYANCE CONSTRUED AS A MORTGAGE
! A conveyance of real estate by the in
/ testate to defendant, in payment OF d
| claim for labor and services, the cOnsid
| GRAFTON appearing to be far below the &C
! tual value OF the property, was treated
! ny the Court as a mortgage, and the de
/ icnddUt ordered TO re-cUnVey to the ad
mInisjrd,ors on being paid The amount 0
us clam with interest. William ct al
! -. Kdea, l Haw. 236.
COMPREHENSIVE.
mutual participation OF profits anC
losses in any business, IS sufficient Il
,leaIe partnership. so held in thu
/ obstruction # a written agreement, IL
I which the word partnership was no
; I-rd Lathr p vs.. Wood, l Haw. II.
Oae partner has no right to apply the
part. er-hip property to the payment q
ais private debts, without the consent O
he other partners. Assong VS.. ShOng
my, l law. los.
All the mem btrs of firm who Were
partners at the time OF the contrac
should be ] ined as plaintiffs in an aC
ion ON that contract, but there are eX
ceptions TO this general rule, as in tn,
case OF dormant partners, and those who
are merely nominal; where the omission
! to iOiu all the mem bvrs of the firm a.
plaintiffs appears on the face of tht
p,eadings, it is the duty of the defenGan
to demur at once. 1t is true the defend
ant NAV avail himself OF the error, as
ground OF non-sult at the trial, or on
motion in arrest Uf judgment. Plaintiff
1 L.. l.,
emitting to join his partners, and de
PENDANT moved a non-suit, which wa
refused Verdict for the plaintiff. Tn
defendant moved to set aside the verdict
which the Court refused to do, as it APP
peared that substantial justice had beer
done Notwithstanding the mistake in no
granting the non-suit. and ordered judy
ment to be entered for the plaintiff, tn
plaintiff to pay costs. Mitchell VS.. Fay
1 Haw. 14S.
The right of survivorship does no
exist between merchant partners, unde
the Lex MercatOria.
1t is the duty OF a surviving partner t
use all diligence in adjusting and set
Ting up the affairs of the partnership
and in dsposing of its property an
effects, with a view to final division c
the profits or proceeds, between a.
parties interested.
: The Court granted an order requirin
the defendant, as surviving partner, t
make discovery, and render a ful
account of the partnership business
Clovson VS.. Agden, l Haw. ia.
The Court granted an injunction
against the defendant, the surviving
partner of Porter, and appointed a re
ceiver to settle up the partnership busi
ness. III. l79.
The Court granted an order agains
} the defendant, as surviving partner, t
) deliver the books and accounts of tn
partnership to the receiver, within
: given time, under penalty, he havin
/ sent the books out Of the Kingdom ate
b the appointment Of an administrator o.
the estate OF bis deceased partner
Spencer vs.. Agden, Haw. ISL.
DAMAGES.
, In q suit to recover the freight c
goods, the consignee may set off dam
ages arising from the negligence of tn
carrier.
Held, that the carrier was not liabl
for damage from sweating" the vesse
being furnished with proper dunnage
and the goods we'll slowed.
If merchandise in good order is en-
trusted to a carrier, and it arrives at 1t
destination in a damaged state, the car
riav - raSUOrs iblp 1DIpSS he can ShOX