The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1889-04-03
FROM M. THOMPSON'S DIGEST
OF HAWAIIAN SUPREME
COURT DECISIONS.
Observation-Disclosures

MANSLAUGHTER--M
If a person in the commission of
a felonious act, that is, one which is
highly criminal, undesignedly kills
another, such killing is murder. If
such act is simply unlawful, and
without any deliberate or malicious
intention, the killing will be man
slaughter. Rex VS.. Bush, l Haw.
SO.
MARITIME CONTRACTS BETWEEN FOR
ETeNERs.
Though the Admiralty Courts of
this country are not bound to take
jurisdiction of controversies growing
out of maritime contracts between
foreigners having no domicil in this
country, as they are when the par
ties are subjects or resident here,
yet they may lawfully exercise it,
and will do so or not, as a sound
discretion, and the claims of justice
may demand.
Plaintiff was employed at Homo
lulu, as master Of the whaleship
Phoenix, of New London, for the re-
mainder of the voyage, but on re-
turning to Honolulu at the end of
cruise, he was removed from the
command by order of the owners,
without any apparent cause, held;
that he was entitled to a settlement
and payment of his wages to Homo
lulu. Williams VS.. Sebastian ct al.
l Haw. 295; see Admiralty Juris-
diction.'
MARRIAGE.
In civil cases marriage may be
proved by reputation, declarations,
and conduct of the parties and
other circumstances usually accom-
panying the relation. Such evidence
is not conclusive, but it is admissi-
bic to the jury as testimony from
which marriage may be inferred.
Apong VS.. Marks ct al. l Haw. so.
MARRIED WOMEN.
A contract made by married wo-
man, whereby she engages to per-
form service for another, is not per
Sc void, but may subsist, at least,
until the husband shall interfere and
put an end to it. Where a wife is
living apart from her husband her
employment to work for a third
party, cannot affect The husband S
right to her society. Hokii ct al.
VS.. Nicholson. / Haw. 260. See
Session Laws, 1888, ch. II, p. 2S,
as to property rights of married wo-
men.
A minister's certificate of mar
riage, unless it purports to be copy
of the record which the law requires
him to keep of all marriages
solemnized by him, is not admissi-
BILE evidence, in cases of Grim. con. !,
to prove the marriage. Whittit VS..
Miller. l Haw. 80.
MARSHAL MUST EXECUTE PROCESS.
The Marshal cannot excuse him
self for not executing process of ar
rest against a defendant, on the
ground that the bond of indemnity
filed by the plaintiff is not stamped.
Where the process is issued In the
matter of which the Court has juris-
dlction, he must execute it.
The Court having decided to am
cree the Marshal, without the aid of
jury. Smyth VS.. Hegarty. l Haw.
206.
MINORS.
When a minor purchases land, he
must make his election within
reasonable time after reaching his ma
jority whether he will keep the land
and pay for it, or disafiirm the con-
tract and return the land. He can
not keep the estate and refuse to
pay the consideration money. Ka-
hanu VS.. Thompson. l Haw. 235.
NEW TRIAL.
New trials are never granted up
on the ground of surprise, unless the
verdict is clearly and manifestly
against the evidence or the law, and
where it is manifest that the jury
have mistaken or abused their trust.
Walter vs.. Grimes. / Haw. 81.
A motion for n new trial upon the
ground of newly discovered evil
dence, should be supported by afli-
davit, showing the name of witness,
and what he will testify to if pro-
duced upon another trial, and should
be accompanied by the affidavit of
the witness himself, as to what he
will testify to, in order that the
Court may judge of its materiality.
Id. 35, SO.
A new trial will not be granted on
the ground that improper evidence
was admitted on the trial, if there
be sufficient evidence without it to
warrant the finding of the jury and
it does not appear that injustice has
been done by the admission of the
improper evidence. Whittit vs..
Miller. l Haw. 80.
A new trial will not be granted on
the ground of excessive damages
in an action for Grim. con-, unless il
appears to the Court that the jury
acted under the influence of undue
motives, or of gross error or mis-,
conception of the subject. Ib.
A motion for new trial may be
| ma6a ot anU TINA within fan 5a ,,f