The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1898-06-17
OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUDD. c. J.

an action damages malicious prosecution tried
IN the Circuit Court, First Circuit with mixed jury, who
found verdict for the plaintiff in the hundred and
fifty dollars The defendant brought bin Of exceptions
this Court. Defendant and collector
District of Koolaupoo Oahu No. l. and the plaintiff having
been assessed for personal taxes for the year 1897 in that district
had paid them there On the 30th of June defendant
The alleges
that wherea John Kaaukoa IIaua, Oahu has neglected
and failed pay the of five dollars assessed upon
him for personal taxes for the year 1897 due and unpaid
and property being found belonging the said John Kaau
koa whereon levy Distress directed forth
with the said John Kaaukoa and take him before the
District Magistrate of the District show why he should
be sentenced imprisonment hard labor until he discharge
the amount of the and costs.
The two exceptions refusal the court
allow defendants counsel in the deputy
sheriff and the District Magistrate respectively if they knew
whether the defendant CIV Henry chad any i'll viii malice
or anything of the kind the plaintiff Kalaukoa
proper croxaminaton plaintiff not having introduced from
these any evidence of actual malice i'll viii against
plaintiff on the part of the defendant
Exception three to the courts refusal allow witness
to be asked on crossexainaon if he knew whether
customary resided in the District of Keohe Kooupoko.
The question daowed proper
ton The right the question responsive
anything brought out the direct examination.
Exception The refused to allow defendants
sci crossexaminaton of the plaintiff ask him the question,
hn the five years. outside of the time you arrested
and compelled process of law pay your have you
gone and paid your voary This question
properly rejected material and show what his
habit in respect paying could not affect the issue
before the court and jury.
Exception five When the plaintiff closed, defendant
asked three grounds ( o evidence Of malice
the jury any facts proven from which jury could
malice ( No evidence of the of reasonable and
probable The burden Is upon the plaintiff to show
want reasonable and probable and malice These
two points will consider later The third ground of
dco1-
Letting judicial character He acting under
and he is protected by that statute Unless upon the
face of the the process void and therefore there
absolutely jurisdiction to issue the warrant If he had any
authority to issue the warrant the Act protects him"
It does not seem the statutory authority granted
collectors issue warrants makes them judicial officers
But whether they judicial officers they amenabe
to suits they process of without probable
and with malice
Exception six Counsel defendant excepted the verdict
being contrary law and the evidence and the weight of
evidence This necesstates consideration of the evidence
bearing upon this question we'll upon the first points
upon which the motion for nonsut grounded
The plaintiff delinquent for his personal The
had in January, 1897 visited plaintiff at Kaua and
assessed him for personal taxes and CATER nquirie did not
enroll his property subject to taxation because it not
$500 the exempted by law 1t does not
appear that plaintiffs personal taxes then demanded though
by law they due In the demanded
The defendant that plaintiff said he had pad his in
Honolulu which upon investigation by defendant proved be
Defendant again asked about the 25th June for the
and the reply again made by plaintiff Defend
asked him produce his receipt and plaintiffs giving
an evasve answer saying, got my receipt; have paid
my taxes Both of June defendant issued warrant for
arrest gave officer and told him to It, lie did
not believe plaintiff when he said he had paid his taxes
The deputy sheriff. Pala says that about month before
the arrest plaintiff defendant when asked for his taxes
che had paid them in Honolulu On the other hand
plaintiff testified that the answer returned defendant
that he paid taxes either in Honolulu Kohaa and that
asked by defendant before the Both Of June
his receipt but his dog receipt and that he on the
dav of arrest was time produce his receipt
for his personal He testified that he replied that the
receipt was if he allowed reasonable time