The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1900-05-16

Tor hire upon steamships onerated bv
salu corporation. The defendants are
stTuct you anu So III
II you come to the conclusion from the
| evidence that on the 18th day of Anrfl
@ @hvv, pialntln offered himself in fit and
| PioPer state 10 be carried on board the
steamship Miowera, one of the steamers
| r.. ueHynuaht corporation, from Honolu-
Other nnr,s nrtorla, british Columbia. and
wwnihf 10 pay the proper and reasonable
| rare theretor, il became and was the
pcuhdeh ,, DUTY OF the defendant corpora
! pou 10 receive him on board the said
| steamship Miowera and carry him az a
| passenger from Honolulu to Victoria and
U,ner rSi9r ports, provided there was accom-
| board the said vessel The refusal Of the
| defendant corporation under such cir
- CO tances. TO so receive and carry him
| g. b{ats9ehser would be wrongful act,
| ,iot "hlch the defendant corporation is
| liable in damages -
! ne burden OF proof is on the plaintiff
20 establish by preponderance of the
/ tNluehce tnat there was accommodation
| ana convenience for him on the said
| sttamship Miowera on the 18th day of
and that ~; %nen nne ne applied for passage,
! an amd that ne was prepared to pay his fare
! or the price of his ticket and that he
presented himself in a fit and proper
STATE TO De received on board and carried
as passenger.
| by "a "preponderance OF the evidence
| u meant such evidence as will reasonably
| shusIy You OF the truth of the allega-
| tiCns in the complaint and the Compliance
/ with the condition set forth in this in
| struction.
| | charge and instruct YOU that Won are
/ tht exclusive judges of the facts in this
case; the character, quality, strength,
weakness and credibility of the evidence
are matters exclusively for you
| . Inc character, attitude, motive and re-
| LIABILITY OF the witnesses who have given
| testimony i'm this case are matters for
| your consideration and exclusively for
1 N md
| it S!SlatiVe enactment.
| Tie fact that defendant is a corpora- =
{ ton should not influence you in arriv-
| INK at "a conclusion in this ease Favorable
/ - the plaintiff That is to saw a corpor-
/ alton has the same rights and is subject
| 10 the same liabilities as Individual
| ease.
The burden of proof is on the plaintiff
/ 10 sustain the allegations set out in the
| con plant, and he must sustain his whole
| case and prove all that he is bound to
| prove by such preponderance of the evi-
usuCe ~ as WIN reasonably satisfy you of
| the truth of the allegations in the com
| plant and material to the issue which
! YOU are to determine by your verdict
III you come to the conclusion that the
p!ainti1 IL entitled to recover in this case
! you will then have to consider the dues-
ton OF damages. The damages recover
aDie IN TINS action are the expenses actu-
ally incurred by the delay caused by the
wrongful act of the defendant corpora
| ticn, such as lodging and convenience
| but not particular consequential loss
which may have been occasioned by
plaintiff not reaching the place whittier
ne was bound at the time contemplated
such as loss of business by not keeping
appointments.
If nine of you agree you may return
verdict under the statute law now "a
force N these Islands.
chnrRe and Instruct you that the t,a-
fendant corporation as common carriers
! had no right to refuse to accept and re
| Ceive an Intended passenger on board
! their steamship on account of race or
color, plaintiff was entitled to the same
COZ sideration by the defendant corpora
ton as any white man who might apply
for passage on the steamer, and If you
should come to the conclusion that plain
tiff complied with all reasonable regula-
| ttCns, and did what he was bound to do
and that defendant corporation had the
convenience and accommodation for him.
and that the true reason for the refusal
of the defendant to accept plaintiff as a
passenger was on account of his race or
color, such refusal is not justified by
law
if the defendant complied with the
regulations of the Board of Health at
this port the fact that the steamship
would be quarantined at Victoria or
Vancouver, II. c., would not relieve the
defendant as common carriers to accept
and receive the plaintiff passenger
| II they had accommodation and convent
| ence, and the plaintiff presented himself
| in fit and proper state to be received
ana was willing to pay his passage
/ money.
At ten minutes to O'Clock the jury
| retired, and the spectators composed
| themselves for a long wait. The wait
was long one, and the time dragged
on until after 8 o'clock, when Judge
Davis began to show signs of uneasi-
ness. The spectators. attorneys and the
members of the minstrel troupe took
the same uneasy view of the situation.
! Finally the Judge gave vent to his
thoughts:
! Gentlemen, I'm hungry and intend
to- go home for supper. I've put in a
long days work. II the jury does not
put in an appearance within five min
utes | will instruct the bailiff to inform
the jury that | will be back again at
1880, and have them locked in the jury
room until that Tune
We'll, Judge" said one of the attor-
neys, "how about supper for the jury?"
mo, | don't believe they should be
supplied with supper. No, let them stay
there until they arrive at a verdict, an
keep them locked up"
It was pointed out to the Judge that
the jury would probably get hungry.
and il was the usual custom to send
them their meals, to which the Judge
finally acquiesced.
At nine o'clock exactly the jury was
announced rea y to render its verdict.
The Jurors were brought in by the bail
iff and ranged themselves in a row be
fore Judge Davis in the Supreme Court
room. l.. G.. Ables, foreman, handed
the Judge the written verdict, which
was as followc:
1--WE. the jury in the above entitled
cause (Hogan VS.. Canadian Australian
Company, find for the plaintiff In the
sum OF s2,25O. Three dissenting. l.. C..
Ables, Foreman"
II was explained that the jury was
unanimous in rendering verdict in fa-
vor of Ernest Hogan, but were at varl-
ance in rendering their verdict upon the
sum 10 Re allowed him.
Mr.. Robertson. counsel for the de-
fendant company, at once entered an
exception against the verdict on statu-
tory grounds.
Mr.. Lyman. one of the jurors. desir-
ed to ask question Of the Judge before
the Jury was discharged. but counsel
for the plaintif1 interposed and the mat
ter was dropped. The jurors, when dis