The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1900-01-06
OPINION or THE COURT BY FREAR. j.


This action Of as.unpt Is brought this court by defendants
exceptions certain instructions of the trial Judge to the
jury and to the overriding Of motion for new trial based on
the ground that the verdict contrary law and the
evidence
Plaintiffs theory that he as proprietor of the Nakaainana
Printing House entered into agreement with the defend
ants popieto of the weekly newspaper Ka Ahailono
wall" in May, 1891 under which he was to print their paper
and they pay him therefor $50 per issue of copies
but if the number Of copies should there should be
corresponding reduction in the payment the 50 per
800 copies the agreement be in force six months with
the privilege Of six months if mutually agreed; that this
afterwards embodied in a instrument dated
May 81 1897 and signed by three the defendants of the
others having been requested sign and the remaining
having declined saying that the signatures Of the three who had
signed sufficient; afterwards the contract was renewed
orally by if all defendants in accordance with
the of the original agrecmen that the plaintiff performed
his part until the end Of January 1895 when he ceased because
of the failure Of the defendants pay and that there then
balance due and unpaid of $7434O for which this
action brought.
We shall first consider the last exception namely that taken
the everything of the motion new trial based on the
ground that the verdict contrary the law
The jury found against four of the defendants for the full
claimed $7434O and against the remaining defendant
for oneffth of $i4S.5O this last mentioned sum being the
due up the end Of the first period six
ing which the original be in force The in
ucted the jury that those of the defendants if any, had
further connection with the work either by request for
extension of the agreement acceptance of the work would
not be liable for the value Of the work done after the expiration
Of the first six months 1t then proceeded follows III Its charge:
f you should decide that of the defendants all of them
liable original Agreements but that all Of the defend
liable liable for the work done after November
31s your verdict would in that be against the defendants
who liable only the original agreement for the Of
SS50 and against those Of the defendants who liable also
under the extension of the for the full amount claim
OF EOr have hvpI y Il.
c. ID and f. and A. and liable under the original agree
men and under the extension your verdict against ~ and
would be for the of 4S5O; and you should find that
and liable only under the original agreement but
under the extension you find verdict against them for
full claimed $7434O" 1t is contended that the
verdict uncertain unntcgibc ambiguous irresponsible
the issue and fatally defective. One specific objection the
verdict under this head that Joint against four Of the dce
against and that in far it against
this one the of S4iS5O for the whole OF
which he was liable if liable ALL but for only onch of this
The objection we'll taken The plaintiff claimed that the de
PENDANTS contracted Jointly and severalv Let that
they did SO contract far they contracted at all Still the
verdict would have he for the against all who
were in the same class If all va defendants liable under
the original agreement the jury evidently found they
the verdict should been against all five for the SS5O and
if only four were liable under the extension of the agreement
the verdict should have been against all of them for the add-
onal $29LgO The verdict could properly be against four
ON the original agreement for the SiS5O and against one Tor
nncffth If that II could not even properly nave ueeh
against each IF the cncfh of the whole for each con
rccd for the whole for fractional part No doubt the IN
trcfo was erroneous or least ambiguous and misleading Tor
taken literally would permit verdict against five for SIie5o
and against four for S743lO $l199O altogether although
only 7l3 10 was claimed And whether, since exception
taken m the instruction. could aside the verdict il IT WAS
in accord with the instruction. whether could so con-c
in the light Of the whole record allow it to stand we need
not say for does accord with the instruction and contrary
70 both the law and evidence The instruction would not per
init separate verdict against and JOINT verdict against FOUR
for tho same sum, much less a several verdict against one tor
fraction IF that sum and Joint verdict against four for the