The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1891-01-22
SUPREME COURT.


The Court sat in banco yesterday,
all the Justices present. Eight cases
were argued and submitted.
Maria g. da Silva VS.. Joaquin da
Silva, appeal from the order of JUS
tice McCully, who refused to grant
a separation of the parties. Rosa
for plaintiff; Whiting for defendant.
The King VS.. j. Il. Gaspar, liquor
selling without license, on excep-
tons from Third Circuit Court.
Owing to the absences from the
kingdom of Messrs. Neumann and
Brown, counsel in the matter, this
case was continued over for the
term
The two garnishee cases, entitled
l.. B. Kerr vs.. VIM. S. Wond and
M. McInerny VS.. VIM. S. Wond,
were, by request of the defendant
appellant, discontinued from further
hearing. These cases were on ap-
peal from the Police Court of Homo
lulu. The garnishee in both cases
was the Minister of Finance. Messrs.
Whiting and Parke appeared for
plaintiffs; defendant in person.
J. Klla VS.. P. Kahuhu, pound
master, damage. This case is on
appeal from the District Court of
Koolaupoko on this island The
appeal was heard by Mr.. Justice
Dole at Chambers, who decided in
favor of the plaintiff, hence the de-
PENDANTS appeal to banco. This
case touches certain alleged damage
sustained for overcharges by the
pound master Castle for plaintiff;
Magoon and Kaulukou for defen-
dant.
The King VS.. William Joe and
others, on question reserved by Mr..
Justice McCully. Defendants were
charged with vagrancy in the Police
Court of Honolulu. Prosecution
argues that it being summary case,
an appeal does not lie from the
magistrate; whereas the defendants
claim that the charge being brought
under the statute of 1886, an appeal
must lie or the said statute is uncon-
stitntional. The statute cited refers
to vagrant persons found in semin-
aries without lawful excuse. A. p.
Peterson, Attorney-Genera|, for the
Crown; Kaulukou for defendants.
In the mandamus case of T. May
and others, trustees, vs. His Lord
ship the Bishop of Honolulu. Mr.
Hatch for the plaintiffs, moved
for q peremptory writ command
ing the defendant to do that which
the decision of the Court sets
forth; plaintiffs claiming that de
PENDANT has not obeyed the
order of Court. The writ was grant
ed. No appearance of or for defend
ant. An affidavit in support of mo
ton was filed, and service of copy
was certified to.
The Hilo Sugar Company vs.. Mi
oshi, a japanese, submission withou
suit. The points raised in this cas-
are as follows:
1. That defendant is unwilling t.
work for said Hilo Sugar Co., his IN
voluntary servitude being prehibitet
by the Constitution. 2. That de
PENDANT had no power under the Con
stitution to ALLEVIATE his liberty. 3
That the Board of immigration hat
no right or authority to make con
tract in the name of the Hawaiian
Government. a. That the Hawaiian
Government is not bound by sucl
contract. 5. That the Board of I'm
migration exceeded its authority b,
undertaking that the said Miosh
should be exempt from all and ever
kind of personal tax, and have tn
full, equal and perfect protection o
the laws of Hawaii. 6. That sue
contract could not be assigned with
out defendants contract. z. Tha
neither the Board of Immigratio
nor the Hawaiian Government is
person within the meaning of SEE
ton 1417 of the Civil Code author
izing labor contracts. 8. That th
contract is not properly stamped. {
That the assignment is not properl
stamped. Ills case is one that il
wolves the labor system of the cour
try. Hatch for the plaintiff; Hunt:
man for defendant.