The Hawaiian gazette., 1900-08-10
OBJECT TO
A RULING
Lawyers MakeV Vigorous
Protest.
MANY CASES DISMISSED
Judge Humphreys Cuts a Swath in
Calendar and Attorneys
Don't Like 1t.
tFrom Wednesdays DallyD

oyerburdened calendar of jury-waived
cases in the Circuit Court yesterday morn
ing. The day before in setting the cases
for trial he had notified all attorneys that
their cases would follow directly In the
order of their setting on the calendar.
Yesterday at the opening of court the
cases were called in their order, and as
the attorneys in several had not yet come
to the court, thinking that their cases
could not possibly be reached each case
in which no attorneys were present was
summarlly dismissed for non-appearance
There was feeling expressed by some of
the attorneys, some were in the adj
joining room when their cases We're dis
missed, and when they were notified, and
asked for a reinstatement, Judge Hum
phreys refused to do so and said they
should have been in the courtroom, in
cordance with the instructions of the
Court the day before.
]. A. Magoon was one of the sufferers
from Judge Humphreys ruling. Mr.. Ma
COON had three cases on the calendar.
two of which were set before Judge Sill
man. According to the numbering of the
cases those which Judge Silliman was to
hear were earlier the calendar, and
Mr.. Magoon was In court in the morning
pened, the first case called before Judge
Silliman took some time and Mr.. Ma
gems case was not called. While he was
in Judge Sillimans courtroom messen-
ger came from Judge Humphreys court
saying that the case on the latters cal
endar had been dismissed.
II went to the courtroom Immediately"
said Mr.. Magoon last evening, land ask
ed to have the ruling reversed, explaining
to the Judge the circumstances of the
cese. He asked if 1 was actively engag-
ed in Judge Silliman's court, and when
I said / was waiting for my case to be
C; He'd he said that should have been in
his courtroom, and refused to modify the
or6er. / intend to present an affidavit to-
mt rrow for the modification of the order,
stating the whole matter: and I think
that Judge Humphreys win see the JUS
tice of it,
Following is list of the cases which
were so arbitrarily dismissed:
Young Chung VS.. Joe Davis; damages.
Appeal from District Court of Eva. Pet
erson for plaintiff Kane for defendant
appellant.
damages. Appeal from District Court of
Honolulu Magoon and Long for plain
tiff Davis for defendant.
Republic of Hawaii VS.. W. II. Field;
selling liquor without license. Appeal
from District Court of Honolulu. Robert
v
Kwong Sing Wo Co. VS.. Wing Wo
Chong; summary possession of land APP
peal from District Court of Honolulu. De
Belt for plaintiff; Clark for defendant
appellant
Charles Kamman VS.. Mary Stevens:
covenant. Davis ard Dickey for plain
II. II. Parker VS.. Palea; trespass. APP
peal from District Court of KoolaupQko.
c. Brown for defendant.
II. H. Parker VS.. Il. X. Bull; trespass.
Appeal from District Court of Koolaupo-
ko c. Brown for defendant.
F. Pahia VS.. Palea; trespass, Appeal
from District Court of Koolaupoko. G.
Brown for defendant.
John Bell vs.. Palea; trespass Appeal
from District Court of Koolaupoko. C.
Brown for defendant.
William Henry VS.. Palea; trespass. APP
peal from District Court of Koolaupoko.
c. Brown for defendant.
Judgment was rendered for plaintiff in
the case of C. ]. Fishel vs. Z. H. Kahana-
nui ct al. for ,s469.S for goods delivered
to the defendant twelve years ago.
Orders of nolle prosequi We're entered in
the following cases:
Republic VS.. zee Long Tai; violating
sanitary regulations.
Republic VS.. Tai Cheong; violating
building regulations.
Republic VS.. ]. A. Magoon: violating
The following cases were stricken from
the trial calendar yesterday for hearing
In vacation.
Namaoka VS.. Whtehouse & Wilson; as
slmpsit
M. Souza VS.. NJ G. Simons assumpsit
SUIT AGAINST BROWN is OFF.
that 5000 damage suit which was
brought by George l.. Edwards few days
ago, through his attorney, George Davis,
against High Sheriff Brown was quietly
ahc unostentatiously discontinued yester-
day. The reason for the sudden discon-
truance after all the flourish which at
tended Its filing could not be ascertained.
High Sheriff Brown only knew that the
case was pau and that was all, and Mr..
Davis could not be foun- to explain mat
ttrs.
following as 1t did 80 closely on the Da-
vis-Brown controversy, was generally as
cr1bed to personal feeling upon the part
of the attorney. Edwards Is a convict In
the penitentary whose case In under con-
sderation by the Supreme Court under
habeas corpus proceedings. Since the
hearing Edwards has been at work Just
as usual with the other prisoners on the
roads. This condition OF affairs did not
please Davis, and no brought contempt
proceedings against High Sheriff Brown
10 compel him TO stop working HIS client
tie also filed this suit for damages against
tho High sheriff, but now, only "A week
or 80 after It's nDng, the case Ii dismiss
ed
AUSTIN ASKS DIVORCE,
Ernest H. Austin yesterday brought
sult for divorce against his wife, May w.
Austin, Tho complaint states that the
lHN Nero married February 10, 1871, IN
Honolulu ana thai they have twp chill
iren, aged seven aud i've years, liai since
hau huH a Iltlf
fnfnts which, MI, Austin Gays, arose from
tbs misconduct and uRfa'thfnlnrHa NJ hla
wife She has become hahlllally intflnH
nffaia, be aiefsi sHd has heon Anllis on
many dlf0rnnl neehHl0ns " misconduct
'ns violation ~ hoe marital fers 10