The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1894-07-13
COURT NOTES.
WEDNEsDAY,July 18th.

J Inc has IEnueEeu
decision in the bankruptcy matter of
Tai Wo Chan Company Diminishing
the appeal set up by the respondents
and allowing the petitioning claim
ants TO amend their petition by in
sorting the names of the partners who
were omitted. This was a case of an
| unregistered firm, hence the petition
ers could only cite aud summon into
Court those who were actually doing
| business. Carter & Carter and w. A.
Kinney for the petitioner and credit
ors; Z. w. Ashford for the respond
ents
Carter Il Carter, as attorneys for
the Queens Hospital in the mandam-
us case against the Collector-General
of Customs, to compel him to collect
the usual hospital tax, having filed q
office of appeal to the Supreme
Court and perfected the same, the case
is to come up at the next term of the
| Supreme Court.
In the equity case entitled the Peo-
pies Ice and Refrigerating Company
vs.. the Hawaiian Electric Company,
Judge Cooper has denied motion
| filed by the defendant company pray
| ing for amendment of the decree, and
an order has been made requiring the
| defendant company to show cause on
| Friday next why the decree should not
be enforced and the deeds of exchange
made. Carter & Carter for plaintiff;
| F. M. Hatch and G. Brown for de-
| PENDANT.
In the equity case between Irene II.
Ii Brown and others VS.. G. A. Brown,
| praying for construction of the will
of the late Hon. John Ii, Judge Coop
er has denied plaintiffs motion that
! before discontinuance be allowed as
to said Irene III. III Brown she be made
| to pay an attorneys fee amounting to
| $3.50, the Court ruling that it has no
jurisdiction in such matter, but will
only order the payment of actual
costs of Court incurred, and also al
| lows the withdrawal OF laid Mrs.
Brown from the suit. The other
| plaintiffs have noted an appeal from
said ruling: This leaves only a. F.
| Judd, guardian ad Item, and the two
minors, as parties plaintiff to prose-
cute the case. 1t is remarked by those
| protesting to know that without Mrs.
Brown the other plaintiffs have no.
standing in Court. Carter & Carter
and w. A. Kinney for plaintiffs; f.
M. Hatch and j. A. Magoon for de-
PENDANT.
THURSDAY, July Il.
In the matter of the bankruptcy of
Tai Wo Chan Company, of Honolulu,
Monday next has been appointed the
time for proof of claims and the ap-
pointment of an assignee for said
bankrupt estate.
Judge Whiting yesterday partially
heard that old, long fought case be-
tween the officers and members of a
Kona Land Hui entitled j. III. Haanio
and others VS.. Chas. Kaiaiki, and the
items of account in dispute were re-
ferred to Clerk George Lucas to verify
and report as a Master. w. G.. Achi
for plaintiffs; G Brown for defendant.
The same Judge has approved
the account of Mrs. A. A. PER- truss
tee under the will of the late Jason
Perry, for the year 1S93-9f. "A. Perry
for the trustee.
In Irene III. III Brown ct al VS.. G.. A.
Brown, the nominal plaintiffs put in
their proposed exception to the ruling
of the Court made on the 18th instant
regarding Mrs. Browns liability to
attorneys fee amounting to $3.50,
which was objected to by the defend
ant; the Court Cooper, j now sus-
talns the objection and the said plain
tiffs have no further recourse as to
said liability.
In t. w. Rawlins VS.. Honolulu
Soap Works Co. the Supreme Court
has rendered its decision overruling
the pleas and demurrer set up b. the
defendant, and the case is now re-
manded to the Circuit Court with
leave for plaintiff to amend his com.
plant and the case heard de novo.
The opinion was by the Chief Justice,
concurred in by the other Justices. G..
Brown and w. A. Kinney for plain
tiff; a. S. Hartwell and +. NJ. Hatch
for defendant.
Another decision filed by the same
Court is in the partition case entitled
the Hawaiian Commercial and Sugar
Company VS.. the Waikapu Sugar
Company. Judge Whiting who sat in
place of Justice Frear is the author of
the decision which sustains the Larti-
ton made by the Commissi ners, and
which was objected to by the defend
ant Company. This winds up all the
litigation between said companies in
relation to what has popularity been
called "the million dollar suit" F.
NJ. Hatch for plaintiff; a. s. Hartwell
and G. w. Ashford for defendant ap-
pellant.