The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1891-01-29
SUPREME COURT.
ID. M. Crowley VS.. the Hawaiian
Gazette Company.

Gazette Company.
The case of d. III. Crowley VS.. the
Hawaiian Gazette Company came up
before Judge McCully yesterday
The case is one in which |
D. M. Crowley sues for $4,000 dam
ages for an alleged defamation of |
character. Some time vas taken up
in empaneling jury, six jurors be-
ing challenged by the plaintiff. The
following named jurors were finally
selected: l.. Adler, W. Templeton,
Peter High,W G. King, j. Sorenson,
w. r. Sims, G. Bose, G. W. Zeigler,
J. Fageroos, John Angus, f. S.
Lyman, Jr., w. f. Reynolds.
Mr.. j. Nj. Davidson, counsel for
the plaintiff, opened the case by
reading the declaration, including
the article in question; from the
article referred to, which appeared
in the Feb. 9Th, 1890, issue OF the
2. C. ADVERTISER, the following par
agraphs are quoted:
al. Mr.. Crowley was engaged in the
upholstering business III Ibis city lew
years since, in partnership with Mr..
HASTE.
The firm became involved and made
an assignment for the benefit OF lis cred
itors. A day or two before the assign
rnent MIR. Crowley and his partner
sewed up a lot of valuable furniture COW
nfn hui
WAS hidden in an upstairs back room
under Crowley's bed. A list of the firms
! property was then delivered to the as
! signee. emitting the secretcd goods.
q A few DAYS later Crowley and his
partner had "a falling out, and the part
| ner gave information which led to the
discovery of the goods
| I" Mr.. Crowley then admitted it was
firm property, but claimed that he had
forgotten all about IT.
"2. After this little episode, MIR. Crow
lev took to stumping the country in the
| interest of temperance reform under the
auspices OF the w. @. I. U.
"This palled upon his tastes after
while and he proceeded to organize
troop of native hula girls at kohala. de
thought that the show would take
better if the girls were dressed in silk
tights and opera boots. He accordingly
ordered them through Honolulu mer
chant, but as his credit was not sufficient
to get them, he induced a Kohala frlenC
to guarantee payment. ;.
" Meanwhile Hawaiian opera die
not pay the dividends expected OF it
rhe tights came, Mr.. Crowley left hi
friend in the lurch and the friend had tt
paw for them. That friend has yer,
sober recollection OF the event.
"3. Since the commencement of The
present election campaign, Mr.. Crowley
being a prominent leader OF the Me
cbanic's Union, went to member o
the Reform Party and stated that
would be easy to break up the Union
and that he would undertake to do it TO
$1,000. Upon his offer being declined
he offered to accept less sum. I'M:
also was declined, and our sober recol
lection of the situation is that MIR
Crowley has since been working wher
ever the biggest Doodle was in sight
There are samples of Mr.. Crowley.
1--WE leave it to the public to judg
/ between Mr.. Crowley's sober recoliec
ton and the ADVERTISERS affidavits.
Mr.. F. M. Hatch replying, states
the defendants answer denying an.
malicious intention on the defen
dant's part, and that the defens
would rely on proving the truth O
the alleged libels and that the print
: ing of the article was justified b
/ public reasons.
/, P. McInerny testified that he ha
t read the newspaper article; ADvEI
TIsER is well-know, characterize
, during late Legislature as th
q Thunderer."
q HIM. Whitney, Manager of the II;
waiian Gazette Co., testified tia
! the copy of the P. G. ADVERTISER
> February 5, 1890, was of reguls
issue of the DAILY ADVERTISER; til
o circulation of the ADVERTISER
q eleven or twelve hundred, mainl
It local circulation, few copies goin
l. abroad; among the latter is or
is COPY sent to His Majesty the Kin
Is of Hawaii during his absence fro
Ie the Islands.
l Plaintiff rests.
n Attorney Hatch then moved fl
8 a non-suit on the grounds that the
y is no allegation in the complain
! that this article is of and concernin
=, ;" the plaintiff" No fact in the artic
y could specify who it was; initials
. plaintiff did not appear IN complain
o. there was no proof that the artic
Is was of or concerning the plaintiff
e. not an innuendo in it from beginnir
to end. In the complaint only IN
j. Crowley" being used. Counsel cite
~ instances from the Court recor,
c. upon which he based his assertio
ct Mr.. Crowley has not seen tit even
he go on the witness stand.
is Mr.. Davidson replied, saying tn
or counsel for defense supported b
3 motion with very technical point
=, =, no other Crowley here but the Oh
y who is plaintiff; half dozen or mo
=. innuendos could not make the stat
Vi ments more definitely libelous, Il
y article was headed cd. NJ. Crowley
" was not necessary to repeat Il
e. name in full or the initials in t
rs declaration.
of Court ruled that the article prir
e. ed in ADVERTISER, and alleged to
x in reference to D. M. Crowley, sho
IS ed that it meant ID. nj. Crowley
10 Mr.. Hatch opened to the jury, OF
v. lining the proposed course of the 6
~ PENDANT; to prove the allegations
- the article true in every asserti'
T and in the public interest.
T First witness called by defen
rs was j. B. Atherton. Witness rec,
~ lected the assignment of Crowley