The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1897-10-26

sold and delivered as set forth in bill particulars The
defendant pleaded a ct OF $50 against zee Yop.
The defendant admitted that the bill of particulars
and no contest was made of plaintiffs claim Defendant
produced evidence showing debt of $50 due from zee Yop
him.
Defendant knew Yop and zee partners in
the grocery business but evidence given either party
whether the partnership OF plaintiffs registered
corded in accordance with law.
The District Magistrate gave judgment in favor of the de
PENDANT for $40 the balance of the off against plaintiffs
The points of law certified to
The demand of off by defendant and allowed by the
District Magistrate is not due from all partners Jointly
The evidence shows that plaintiff zee Sau dor
partner of plaintiff zee Iop.
g. The Judgment contrary the law and the evidence
Section 146 of the Civil Code Comp. l. p. 1922 provides
1T shall be competent to the defendant in any civil action to
plead offset of like kind and denominations existing in the
right, between him and plaintiff.
Section IF there several plaintiffs, the demand
off shall be due from them all jointly; there several
defendants the demand off shall be due them all jointly
except is provided in the following section"
Section 1149 when the person with whom contract is
made, has dormant partner and suit is brought such
by against such partners jointly any debt, due
from the person with whom such made may be
off in like manner such dormant partner had been
joined in the suit
Under these sections of the Civil Code the off claimed by
defendant should have been dsaowed the demand clearly
due from only of the plaintiffs zee 1o and is not claim
against the partnership demand due Jointly from the plain
@ the off be allowed the ground that zee Sau
dormant partner plaintiffs firm for the evidence clear
y shows the contrary be the fact and also that defendant
knew that zee and zee Yop partners and known
and carried business. Further the admission of plaintiffs
claim and denial of the partnership
which pleaded by plaintiffs be given weight adversely to
the claim of defendant that zee Sau dormant partner
The evidence shows zee Sau active partner
The defendant however, claims that the plaintiffs have not
recorded registered their partnership in accordance with
Chapter 2S Laws of $780, and that therefore his claim of
off of the debt of the defendant due from partner zee Yop
is valid set off against the firm.
The Sections of Chapter % referred to
Section Whenever any two or more persons shall carry
business in this Kingdom Repubic) in copartnershp
shall be incumbent for such file in the office of the
Minister of the Interior statement of
L. The and residences of each of the members of
such copartneship.
2 The nature of the business of such coparnership.
3. The firm of copartnersEp, and
f. The place places of business of the copartnehip
Section f. All such statements required to be made by
the preceding sections shall also be published by the members
of each coparnershp least the Hawaiian and English
languages in two newspapers published in Honolulu.
Section The members of copartnershp who shall
neglect comply with provisions of this law shall
severally and individually be liable debts iabi
ties of such coparnep and be everay sued therefor
without the necessity of joining the other members of the
partnership action suit and shall seyeraly be liable
upon conviction penalty not exceeding five dollars for each
and every day while such default continues
The only penalties for nonregaton under this law,
ne and liability of partner for all partnership debts
and where the firm is defendant, the plaintiff relieved of
the consequences of of partner defendant But
in be construed to render partnership liable for
the individual personal debts of partner The off of
defendant should have been dsaowed by the District Mag
trate and Judgment given for the plaintiff for $40
The appeal sustained and the remanded the District
Magistrate to enter Judgment for the plaintiff for $40 and dis
allow the off of defendant without prejudice however the
defendant to bring his action against zee Yop.
Our statute of seto contains nothing authorizing judg
men for the defendant who pleads seto for greater
than the plaintiffs claim and doubtful if such Judgment
can be given but this point not raised argued do
not decide it.
L. A. Dicky for plaintiff.
Kinney d BdHOu for defendant.