The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1898-03-10

". 0. Smith, Attorney General, for prosecution
z. Neamdnn and W. s. Wise for defendant
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE HAWAIIAN
ISLANDS.
DECEMBER TERM 1897.
CHARLOTTE BOYD y. JOHN GANDALL
EXCEPTIONS FROM CIRCUIT CouRr, FIRST CIRcuIr
SUBMITTED JANUARY g. 1898 DECIDED FEBRuARY 8, 1898.
JUDD, CD, FEEAR WHITING, JJ
a the first
the presiding disagreement of the
judgment.
Questions the admbly of certain evidence stated and
comparisons
character the
action a n a affords
their action before them.
Bribery inferred expenditure
improvements on his premises without other in
eliminating evidence
their discussions
OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUDD CT
This action for breach of promise of marriage tried be-
fore Judge Perry and jury the last August of the
First Circuit Court resulting in verdict for defendant It is
the second trial of the case former trial resulting in the dis
agreement jury Judge Perry had presided the
trial and the first point in plaintiffs bill of exceptions is that the
presiding of Judge Perry in the second trial in violation Of
Article SS of the Constitution which reads No Judge Mag
trate shall sit appeal trial in any in which he
may have given previous Judgment Judge Perry had
Judgment the previous trial We think that he
disqualified.
The second exception the courts refusing allow wit
for plaintiff Robert Boyd with whom he consulted
after he had had interview with plaintiff the subject of her
marriage with defendant We know of ground upon which
this evidence can be held admissible
The third exception The allowed defendants counsel
ask witness examination this question; You be-
eve ought be pretty SICK don't you have kept
Gandal did up to Tuesday momingY Counsel for
plaintiff objected to the question because opinion
asked and the witness was an expert The
had said that Gandal had Honolulu from his home
Kauai and had not been her, he must be seriously i'll
This to be allowable in order to test her credby
a witness, and was legitimate crossexamination.
Exception four The disallowed evidence
animation not responsive the question: whom witness
had told of what he had witnessed between the parties the
suit. This witness cannot be allowed to
strengthen his evidence by that he told others OF the
testified to-
Exceptions five and six The defendant while on the stand
allowed by the under objection by the plaintiffs
sell whether his home after the imputed engage
ment he had discussed marriage Miss Boyd the plaintiff with
his half brother.
The plaintiff had given testimony she had received
the subject of marriage with plaintiff from person
who said she had been sent this eand by defendants half
brother and that defendant conversation with plaintiff had
admitted knowledge of the messenger and her Grand
Defendants denial that he had ever talked with his half
brother this subject admissible and tended
to contradict plaintiffs testimony that he authorized the
sage.
Exception witness for plaintiff had made certain
specific statements recng what defendant had
occasion Defendants counsel repeated this testimony verbatim
and asked his client if he had said this We do find this
method of procuring denial to be Objectionable.
Exception eight. witness Tesla, who publishes
paper called by plaintiff in rebuttal He gave evidence
that defendant had made admissions tending show
ment to marry between himself and plaintiff An
ing the engagement had appeared in witness newspaper It
objected that Tesla allowed testify that the object
of defendants visit to Testas office have him insert
his denial of the fact of engagement We
this for it evidence tending show improbable
ity of Tesas testimony in that defendant would be likely
to admit his engagement and at the time order denial Of
it to be published