The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1894-04-12

| OPINION OF THE COURT BY BlCk'
ERToN, J.
This is a suit to recover damages
sustained by the plaintiff, in con
sequence of an assault committed by
! defendant on the plaintiff with q
stone, whereby he was seriously In
| jured; the damages were laid at $500
and the case was first heard In the
District Court OF Makawao, where
| Judgment was given for the plaintiff
| for $3.50 damages. An appeal was
| taken to the Circuit Court of the
Second Circuit, and the case came
on for hearing at the December
Term 1898. of said Court, when the
jury rendered a unanimous verdict
for plaintiff, assessing the damages
| at Three Hundred Dollars $4,000, to
| which verdict defendants counsel
noted exceptions. as being contrary
to law and against the weight of evi
| dence; and gave notice of a motion
for a new trial. The motion was
argued and overruled by the Court,
and an appeal was noted to this
Court, aud the matter now comes
here On duly allowed bill of excep
tions.
The only question before US is
whether the verdict was contrary to
the law and evidence. There are no
exceptions taken to any ruling OFT
law made during the trial, or to the
charge of the Court to the jury.
The following stipulation is on files
''The evidence taken before the jury
at the Lahaina term being Identical
with that taken before the District
Magistrate as appears from his notes
on file herein, it is hereby stipulated
that such notes shall be considered
as part of the Bill of Exceptions
herein in lieu of transcript of the
reporters notes." The evidence of
DIR. Herbert shows that he was called
to attend the plaintiff, and found him
with very serious wound on the
head near the temple which might
have been very dangerous; that the
wound had been caused by some
blunt instrument or weapon, used
with great force and that his fee for
treatment of the wound was $50.
John Ferrira testifes to seeing the
wound, and the large amount of
blood plaintiff lost and the nature of
the wound. The plaintiff testities
that the cause of the trouble between
defendant and himself was the
breaking of some window glass by
defendants children; that defendant
came to him and shook hands, then
took him unewares, and with stone
which he had hidden behind his
back, struck him on the head, caus
Il. hot ho
away, followed by defendant, who
continued to throw stones at him
and assault him; that he suffered
great pain from the injuries Inflicted
on him, and was unable to work for
sometime In consequence.
The defendant testified in his own
behalf and denied that he struck
plaintiff with stone, but admitted
that he assaulted him, but only with
his hand. He also says that he was
angry because plaintiff chased his
children with gun and that when
he went to plaintiffs house, he
(plaintiff) drove him out of the house
with hoe; plaintiff denies this and
says that he had gun and was out
shooting birds, but before he chased
the children he left his gun on the
yeranda. The jury evidently did
not believe defendants story, and we
do not see how they could in the face
of the evidence OF DIR. Herbert and
the other two witnesses for the plain
tiff as to the nature of the wound.
They certainly could not believe that
the wound described could have been
caused by the hand of the defendant
MI IN
IDENTIFY ignored the defendants evi
dence entirely, and decided the case
on the evidence offered for the plain
tiff. They also had the evidence
that the defendant had pleaded
guilty on a criminal prosecution to
charge of assault on plaintiff with a
dangerous weapon, stone.
We are of the opinion that the
jury could not have found any other
verdict than one for the plaintiff, and
they evidently considered that $500 |
was not too much or excessive damag
es to allow the plaintiff, taking into
consideration the actual damages he |
had sustained, the great suffering of |
mind and body he had undergone in
consequence of the violent acts of |
the defendant The measure of |
damages was with them, and we do |
not consider it excessive
In defendants brief 1.-THE erroneous
charge of the Judge" Is referred to: |
as We have said, there is no exception
taken to the charge of the Court, and |
we therefore do not consider it.
We hold that the verdict is well |
sustained and we refuse to interfere |
with it.
The exceptions are overrulca
a: Rosa for plaintiff; Charles
Creighton for defendant.
Hnnnlr,lr,