The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1896-01-27
Cranstoun and Mueller Get Very
Little Satisfaction. H..
DEPORTATION STORY REPEATED
Ashford Appears as Witness, but No
Use Found for Him-SteamShip
Company Not Held Responsible.
Defendants Entitled to Costs.

The case of John Cranstoun VS..
Capt. Bird of the SIS. Warrimoo and
James Huddart, manager of the Cana
dian Line, came up before
Hon. Mr.. Justice Drake and jury
this morning, says the Vancouver
News Advertiser of Jan. II. Grams
toun, Muller and Johnstone landed
here by the Warrimoo, Capt. Bird, on
Feb. 10, 1895. Cranstoun being an
American citizen entered protest
in Washington, through y. S. Consul
Peterson. The plaintiff claims $50, 900
damages for forcible deportation.
The defendants plead duress on the
part of the Government of Hawaii
for whom they acted. The defendants
claim to have acted as common car
riers, but will take Cranstoun back to
Honolulu free, and provide all neces
saries for the voyage.
John Cranstoun, the plaintiff was
the first witness called. He told OF
his arrest and forced voyage on the
Warrimoo. He protested to the Cap
tain, who said he had no papers from
the Government at Hawaii. Some
time after he-the captain--said that
he had bond of indemnify sent
a1etter to the captain, stating that he
would hold him responsible for wrong
ful deportation.
On being cross examined the plain
tiff said, that he had been in Homo
Lulu eight months. but was not a rev.
OlutiOnist. He was a member of the
ScheutZen Club, but it was not Roy
aiist club.
The next witness called was CIar-
ence W. Ashford. He was called by
the plaintiff to testify to certain CON
ditions of the law of Hawaii as estab-
lished by treaties, constitution and
statutes, at the time of the deporta
ton. His Lordship ruled that upon
the pleadings, the court here had no
concern with these questions, so Mr..
Ashford was excused.
Mr.. Wilson, for plaintiff, then read
the evidence given by Capt. Bird, upon
his explanation for discovery of the
defence some months since, in which
he admitted the material facts alleged
10y pIaintl fl as to the facts of the de.
pOrtatiOn and that the officers of the
Hawaiian Government had been lin
treaty with him-Capt Bird during
mucu of the day that event happened,
in the effort to secure his consent to
carry the men from Honolulu to Van
couver. Capt. Bird refused TO do so
until that Government rendered him
a letter, in the form of bond of in
demnity, and assuming all liability
for damages which might accrue to
. l1< Ia u tod
The trial was resumed the next day.
plaintiff, put in the interrogatories of
James Huddart, which closed the evi-
dence.
Mr.. Z. P. Davis, @. c., then moved
for n uOn-suIt for both defendants.
Mr.. Davis proceeded to argue for the
non suit stating that Mr. Huddart (if
present, which he was not), might
lawfully depOrt the plaintiff, but
Capt. Bird if he made a mistake in
him, made that mistake in
law not fact, as he, Capt. Bird, wa
aware of all the facts. The COM
in-chief was sole head at
under the martial law
which existed at the time the plain
tiff was deported, aud he issued an
order To remove the plaintiff from
to Vancouver Capt. Bird
was in this way acting as the agent
Of the Hawaiian Republic and it was
an act of state aud an act of sover-
eighty, so 10 action could be brought
against him for this. A case of de- !
l,Oi tajlou from CIIIe wa cited III !
which the fare TO Liverpool was four |
times that usually cuarged but in this |
case the fare was what Wa usually
charged. II wa admitted, however.
that the plaintiff did not pay his own !
are but VINO paid it effected the case |
very slightly. As regards the voyage |
CranstOun admitted that he was used |
,be same as other second class pas
,engers and probably Didn't think