Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1896-03-06
IN THE HIGHER COURTS.
ATTORNEYS AFFIDAVITS CLASH
IN STATEMENTS OF FACT.
Will oTthe Late John r. waterbousc
w. G. Achi Cited for Con-
tempt of Court.

Charles Creighton, attorney for
plaintiff in the divorce case of
Isabella Achi VS.. w. C. Achi, has
filed notice to the defendant that
on Saturday he will move for de-
cision and judgment upon the
motion for an order of contempt
against him heretofore submitted
to Judge Perry.
William II. Castle has filed his
bond in. $50, 600, as administrator
of the estate of the late William
Dean, with Joseph B. Atherton
and James b. Castle as sureties.
Jonathan Shaw, tax assessor,
James L. Morgan, auctioneer, and
+. W. McChesney; merchant, have
boon appointed os appraisers OF
the real estate of the late Katha-
rine l.. Youmans in Honolulu.
Robertson and johnson, attor-
neys for defendants in Keakea.
lani ct al. VS.. Kali Kakoi ct al,
have filed bill in equity for ac-
counting; while Enoch johnson,
attorney for plaintiffs in Wong
Wa Foy ct al. VS.. Kali Kakoi ct
al, has filed a bill for partition.
W. r. Castle, attorney for de-
PENDANT in j. o. Carter, admin
istrator, VS.. the Mutual Life In
surance Co. of New York, has
filed an affidavit for re-hearing.
In his affidavit he alleges that,
prior to his departure for the
United States on August l, 1895,
as attorney for the defendant, he
attended the trial of the cause
both in the Circuit Court and up
on appeal to the Supreme Court;
that he claimed in his pleas in both
courts that the insurance policy
in question was a New York con-
tract, therefore the status of the
beneficiary should be determined
by the laws of New York instead
of those of Hawaii; but that on
his return from the United States
on Jan. II, 1896, he was greatly
surprised and disturbed to find
that the decision of the Supreme
Court had gone off upon a sup
posed admission by him that
such contract of insurance was
Hawaiian.
In the same case the Mutual
Life Insurance Co., by their at
torney, L. A. Thurston, has filed
another affidavit on behalf of re-
hearing. He contradicts a state
ment made in an affidavit by w.
A. Kinney, that he had told Kin
ney that w. r. Castle had, prior
to his departure, appointed him
(Thurston) to take his place in
this cause. Mr.. Kinney he says
is totally mistaken in his recollec-
ton of any such conversation.
Also, where Mr.. Kinney states
that Mr.. Thurston told him at the
same interview that he had read
the Supreme Court decision and
was satisfied that nothing more
could be done for the defendant,
the deponent has no recollection
of any such conversation. He re-
lates the history of his connection
with the case. Shortly after the
filing of the decision on August
Is, S. B. Rose, local agent of the
defendant, had asked him to as
certain the status of the case, and
having done so he gave a state
ment to Mr.. Rose and sent
similar one to the San Francisco
attorneys of the defendant. These
attorneys by return mail instruct
ed him to take proceedings to Sc
cure a re-hearing of the case The |
deponent had asked Mr.. Kinney |
if he was going to take out eXecu-
ton on the judgment, telling him
that if he proposed to do so before
deponent received a reply from
San Francisco, deponent would |
interpose objections to gain time
but not otherwise. He had made |
no promises or agreements with |
Mr.. Kinney, and the action or in