The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1898-11-01
Supreme Bench Decision in a
Local Wage Case.
zERBE REFERRED TO LEGISLATURE
Had No Contract. Say the Justices.
Claim of Plaintiff-Probate Cases
In Circuit Court.

The Supreme Court yesterday rend-
cred a decision in the case of Henry
Zerbe VS.. Republic of Hawaii. In this
case plaintiff alleges that he was en-
ployed by the Government in the SER
vice Of the customs from August 9th.
1896 until October 90, 1897. at a salary
of $50 per month. but was paid only
500 per month and claims a balance
due and owing him OF 1866. From
the testimony the Court found that
plaintiff, while employed on the do r.
as an inspector at salary of 800 per
month. was requested by the Deputy
Collector General to take a position in
the appraisers office as assistant under
Mr. Fishel, another assistant apprais-
err Plaintiff accepted the position re
ceiving the same pay he had while in
spector. Later Mr.. Fishel resigned and
plaintiff continued to work as before
and his commission as Inspector OF
Customs" was altered to Assistant
Appraiser and Examiner" Its date
was llCl CISiilSth I hutl NAlt lltN ap
pointment plaintiffs duties were about
| the same. Plaintiff claims that short
| ly after Mr.. Fishel resigned he request
| ed Deputy Collector General McStock-
er to pay him the salary usually paid
an appraiser and was told that the
matter would be arranged when Mr..
| Castle returned to the country, but
agreed to see that plaintiff received
| $50 per month. After Mr.. Castles re-
| turn he refused to make any change,
| but plaintiff claims that Mr.. Castles
| reply was not communicated to him
and that he continued 20 work, believ-
| ing that his salary was $3.50 per month.
! Upon this point the Court says: The
| utmost that plaintiff can say to sus-
| tain the alleged agreement for $3.50 per
| month is that Mr.. McStocker said: i
will see that you get $3.50, the same as
| that Mr.. Fishel had This does not
| make a contract for $3.50 per month.
| The minds Of the contracting parties
| did not meet on the $3.50 per month
pay and that plaintiffs own evidence,
| taken as whole, tends rather to
show that his understanding was that
| his pay would be increased, and not
| that it had been increased"
In conclusion the Court says: We
wish to add that plaintiff was led to
| believe that his pay would be in
| creased and it might be inferred that
he remained in the position as long as
| he did at the lesser rate CT pay, in eX-
pectation that he would receive the
| larger sum, whereas he might else
where earn the larger sum. Though
not creating a legal liability on the
| part of the defendant to pay the sum
sued for, these considerations, togeth-
er with the fact that the plaintiff was
| doing responsible work that had been
done by two men might we'll be favor
ably considered by the legislature"
| Judgment for defendant.
G. A. Davis for plaintiff. Decision
written by Chief Justice Judd.
| In the Circuit Court of the First Cir
cult. in Equity. Edward J. Morgan,
| plaintiff, VS.. Wahine [<aiu. defendant.
| prayer that the original partition of
certain lands situate at Kappa. Kauai,
be confirmed and claim for the award
of $3.50 for damage alleged to he sus-
tanned by plaintiff for the illegal use
of his share of such land, the Court
finds that by oral partition a line was
| established between the respective
owners coinciding with that drawn by
| Mr.. Neill in 1894 and that conveyances
ratifying such partition should he eX-
| ecutsd by and between the parties
| plaintiff and defendant, and further
awards the plaintiff the sum of S15. for
the use and occupation by the defend
| ant Of the west half of said premises.
| Decision by W. l.. Stanley, Second
Judge Circuit Court of the First Judi
cial Circuit. Kinney & Ballou for Pc
titioner; J. 7. De Bolt, for defendant.
In the Circuit Court OF the First Cir
| cult, November term, Kalaau vs.. Mrs.
Kamakakaulani and Ching Lam, eject
ment, the plaintiff, by his attorneys, j.
| II. Kahookano and Enoch Johnson,
moves that the said cause be discon-
| tinued.
In re estate of John Beswick Wilkin-
| son, deceased, the Court admits the
| will TO probate and orders that letters
| of administration with the will an
| neXed be issued to John u. Holt, Jr.,
limited to the property Of said testa-oT
| situate within the Hawaiian Islands,
upon filing an approved bond OF $3.50,
he to file an inventory within SO days
| and to advertise the usual notice TO
| creditors.