The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1897-02-02
OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUDD, CD

At the last November term Court First Circuit,
the plaintiff recovered of defendant hundred and twenty
damages malicious prosecution The to
defendants bill of exceptions, wherein it
verdict should be aside the ground that
contrary the evidence and the weight of evidence and
trial refused grant when the
evidence and before the submitted to the jury
up second ground of exception The ground
upon which the nOnsult asked claimed by DEFEND
ants COUNSEL that the evidence showed that the plaintiff had
tide a full of the competent law
YER witnesses, upon his advice
that the charge made and the i'll question out
by defendant upon which the plaintiff arrested The
siding Judge properly refused the nOnsuit because whether the
advice given after full of all the material facts
In the cae matter for the jury to decide The case went
the jury upon full statement of the law this point to
which no objection made by defendants attorney.
The other ground of exception that the verdict IS against
evidence Thone arrested warrant out by
Kemme, kept the station house yard for an hour until bal
could be procured and charged with malicious injury Inc
postponed and Intellectual efforts made by the
attorneys settle the in difference Upon motion to
quash the charge In the District Court hoHe posqt was
fresh charge madeha Thone had violated
of the Session Laws of 1885, by wilfuy
lawfully macousIy disturbing Carl Klemme in his
rights and privileges of person and property towit by on the
day of September Honolulu, Oahu, utyng and letting
loose certain horse said horse being then and there attached
harnessed a both said horse
being the property of said Carl Kemme, whereby said Carl
might have been subjected great loss and damage to
property property Thone acquitted In the
Whereupon this suit for damages for malicious
prosecution At the trial before the jury the defend
drew upon of Thone long recital OF
certain quarrel between him and emme arising from the
tenant which existed between them
Mrs. ThOne, OF the plaintiff 1hone, purchased
easehold of the premises which Kemme occupied retail
grocery Defendants apparent object bringing out this
show that if Thone for example, did throw
Kemme boxes into the street because they placed
little beyond the line of Kemme premises, erect fence on
the the of Kemmes premises, that he could
open back door, and similar Urendy acts he would be
likely have united the horse especially when Ihone had
declared that he would let the horse loose the street he
the where ThOne asserted he, Kemme, had
right To tie him.
Without entering all into the discussion to which party
right in these quarre think that the evidence
calculated have different effect the jury from that
intended defendant and tended show that the
that it for the purpose of putting end to
considered unjusabe his
rights of property by the attorney upon whose
prosecution proceeded with significant this
connection The attorney said: 'He (Iemme) wanted him
one) for something if there ofense commit
ted and him could have him arrested for malicious
injury upon the which he made to me- And
examinations told him [emme) the best thing he could do
was arrested and he said he wanted stop the
way Thone acting somehow This evidence would author
ize the urv to find malice and of probable
all the evidence find for setting aside the
verdict as being contrary the evidence and the weight of
evidence.
The exceptions Overrued.
O.. T. Darts for plaintiff.