The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1900-08-08
OBJECT TO
A RULING
Lawyers Make Vigorous
Protest.
MANY CASES DISMISSED
Judge Humphreys Cuts a Swath in
Calendar and Attorneys
Don't Like II.

Judge Humphreys cut deep into the
oy erburdened 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
orcer 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
summary dismissed for non-appearance.
There was feeling expressed by some of
the attorneys. as some were in the adj
joining room when their cases were 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 ac-
IcOrdance with the instructions of the
Court the day before.
J. A. Magoon was one of the sufferers
from Judge Humphreys ruling. Mr.. Ma
COON had three cases on the calendar.
man. According TO the numbering of the
cases those which Judge Silliman was to
hear were earlier on the calendar. and
Mr.. Magoon was in court In the morning
waiting for them 10 come up. AS IL hap
lpched. 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 a messen-
ger came from Judge Humphreys court
saying that the case on the latter's cal
erdar had been dismissed.
II went TO the courtroom Immediately"
said Mr.. Magoon last evening, "and ask
Ell to have the ruling reversed. explaining
to the Judge the circumstances of the
lcese. He asked " / was actively engaR-
led In Judge Silliman's court, and when
said I was waiting for my case to be
&C He'd. he said that should have been in
his courtroom. and refused to modify the
lorCer. I intend to present an affidavit to-
m, rrow for the modification of the order,
stating the whole matter: and / think
that Judge Humphreys will see the jus
ticc OF It,"
Following Is a 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: Name for defendant
appellant.
G. s. Desky vs. Mrs. Thomas Lack;
dsmages. Appeal from District Court OF
Honolulu. Magoon and Long for plain
tin; Davis for defendant
Republic of Hawaii vs.. W. II. Field
: selling liquor without license. Appeal
fro m District Court OF Honolulu. Robert
son A Wilder for defendant.
Kwong Sing Wo Co. Va. Wing We
. lCbong: summary possession of land. APP
peal from District Court of Honolulu. ID
. Bolt for plaintiff; Clark for defendant
appellant.
Charles Kamman vs.. Mary Stevens
a covenant. Davis and Dickey for plain
tn
III. IT. Parker vs.. Palea; trespass. Ap
peal from District Court OF Koolaupoko
s. C. Brown for defendant.
VI. III. Parker vs.. T.. n. Bull; trespass
: Appeal from District Court of Koolaupo
!, ko G. Brown for defendant.
|. r. Pahia W.. Palea; trespass. Appea
- from District Court of Koolaupoko. c
Brown for defendant.
John Bell vs.. Palea: trespass. Appea
from District Court of Koolaupoko. {
Brown for defendant.
William Henry VS.. Palea; trespass. Al
peal from District Court of Koolaupok'
G. Brown for defendant.
Judgment was rendered for plaintin
the case of G. J. Fishel vs.. +. III. Kahana
nui ct al. for sise.s3, for goods delivere
to the defendant twelve years ago.
orders of nolle prosequi were entered
the following cases:
Republic vs.. zee Long Tai; violatin
sanitary regulations.
Republic VS.. Tai Cheong; violatir
building regulations.
Republic VS.. J. A. Magoon. violatir
n beard of Health regulations Ohree cases
The following cases were stricken fro
II. tho trial calendar yesterday for hearir
In vacation.
Namaoka VS. whitehousc & Wilson; a
mpsit.
NJ souza vs.. NJ. c. simons; assumpsit.
SUIT AGAINST BROWN Is OFF
that 5000 damage suit which Y
brought by George l.. Edwards a few ia
y ago, through his attorney, George DAY
against High Sheriff Brown was quist
abc unostentatiously discontinued yesis
day. The reason for the sudden disco
tiruance after all the flourish which 9
tended its filing could not be ascertaiis
3. High Sheriff Brown only knew that I
case was pau and that was all. and y
Davis could not be foun- to explain ms
ters.
che case was somewhat peculiar. q
following as Il did so closely on the I
viz Brown controversy. was generallyls
lcrihed to personal feeling upon the d
OF the attorney. Edwards Is convit
the penitentiary whose case is under &c
mi sideration by the Supreme Court uic
4
hearing Edwards has been at work j
as usual with the other prisoners on
site roads. This condition OF affairs did !
please Davis. and he brought contdr
Proceedings against High Sheriff BIO
10 to compel him TO stop working his che
- He also filed this suit for damages aga
the High Sheriff. but now. only q
OF so after its nnng, the case Is disrii
Ell
AUSTIN ASKS DIVORCE.
Ernest n. Austin yesterday brotl
suit for divorce against his wife. May
Austin. The complaint states that
two were married February 10. 1891,
Honolulu and that they have two {
drcn. aged seven and five years. But 81
December %. 1880. they have had disag
msnts which. Mr.. Austin says. arose T
the misconduct and unfa,thfulness of
wife. She has become habituaily int
perate. he AYERS. and has been guilty
many different occasions of miscon'
anc violation of her marital vows
asks fer absolute divorce and the Gust
of his children. Lorrin Andrews Is
tins attorney.
TO CANCEL A DEED.