The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1894-02-13

| clerks certificate of the default In
answering, and should not have post
poned doing so until the term had
| opened. See Sec. 100 Civil Code.
Another exception Is taken to the
Courts allowing defendant to iden-
| tify and give the date of letter said
10 have been written by plaintiffs
mother to defendant. The letter
| itself was thereafter ruled upon as
not admissible and did not go to the
| jury. We do not consider this re-
versible error. 1t did plaintiff no
| harm.
4 third ground OF exception is that
| the Court refused to grant new
| trial on the ground that the verdict
was contrary to law and the evidence
and the weight of evidence and coun-
sci for plaintiff urge that the verdict
of the jury for S4OO upon claim OF
$1,000 damages, and upon case
where the contract of marriage was
admitted and its breach proved and
where the defendant was shown to
be possessed of a handsome property,
and nothing disparaging to the
character of the plaintiff was brought
out, shows either disregard by the
Jury of the evidence or Partially
and bias on their part.
In an action for breach of promise
of marriage though Dominally the
damages are compensatory for the
breach of the agreement. l. g. for the
loss of marriage, it also admits CT
punitive damages for injury TO feel
ipg-, affections and wounded pride.
Sedgwick Damages, p. 1868
Johnson V. jenkins, "a n. Y. 252.
Tue measure of damages IS
question for the sound discretion OF
the jury as in other cases of personal
! tort. I'm such cases the Court will
refuse new trials for smallness OF
damages for the same reasons that
prevail on questions OF excessive
damages. To eutitle the application
to succeed the jury must have clearly
manifested an abuse of their powers.
? II Graham Il Waterman, n. j. Az.
' This verdict does not seem to Us to
be so fragrant and unjust as to require
the interposition of the Court-that
is. the verdict rendered for $4OO
| damages does not per Sc indicate part
iality or misconduct of the jury. A
r fair and unprecedented jury might
D come TO the same conclusions as &c
! the amount of damage to be awarded
t as the jury did in this case, and II
|. might also award a greater sum
g Within reasonable limits the amount
; of damage was within their discretion
/, We override this ground OF excep
Ct ton.
l. On the last ground advanced by
i. the exceptions of misconduct of the
O inry we think a new trial should bt
r ordered.
"a The case was tried on the 9th Dec
Y, ember, Saturday. 1t appears by the
o affidavit of Lukela Kulu that on thu
d dsy previous to the trial natlv'
1t named J. Kamahele came to de
r. ponent's house in Lahaina with
1t third party. Kamahele was one o
70 the regular panel of jurors, and ha'
n been summoned from Wailuku wher
q. he resides. While there, kapuahiws
IS who stands in the place of father t
at | defendant, came to deponents plac
as to see Kamahele and his companion
q. Kapuahiwa shook hands with ther
p and said to Kamahele that he had IL
10 tended to 90 TO Wailuku on tn
ne Claudine; then he continued the COZ
err yersation with Kamahele In To-
er tone of voice The deponent inferl
r. ed from Kapuahiwa's manner that b
Mt was talking to Kamahele about thl
If case which had been set for trial To
d. next morning, and was trying to IL
q fuence him in defendants favo
wv This Juror was sworn on his U01r d'T
e. He said he was a carpenter living ;
ne Waikiki. That he had not been al
er proached in any way In reference
le- this case, only had heard of 1t (tt
We case). recently, and knew of no reasC
,e- WHY be should not sit on 1t. III
ed fact that Kapuahiwa had talke
sci with this juryman as deposed to
as Lukela Kulu was not brought
lis plaintiffs or her counsel's notice u
sci til after the verdict Undoubtedly
this had been known to them thu
ult could have challenged him, for, pr
en- yious to Kamahele's examlnatl'
&c. John Kanakamaikai was SWORD on
cd roir dire. He stated In substance tn
of Kapuahiwa had talked with him {
led the previous day in the liquor saloc
me Conway, another Juror, being the
of also. Kapuahiwa paid for t
LOG drinks, then took him to the ba
part of the saloon and asked him
not have a due regard for Mahuka's ca
lly to let him 90. 'He first asked if
ill was a iuryman. l told him yes, a
led then he commenced to talk to me a
of said he wanted to leave the case WI
!, it me-&c. He asked me for the nan
,rk. of the jurors and 1 gave him t
in names of those who came from w
,on luku. He said something like tn
to it would be a good thing if L wor
and remember Maknka." The juror d
ing claimed any influence upon his mi
can by this talk Of Kspuahiwa. He a
said that Kapuahiwa treated him