The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1900-05-26

having decided question of jurisdiction in this cause raised
by defendants attorney and argued at the instance OF ms
motion upon full record, Wis., plea to ana auaSO
support of same as required by order OF the Supreme Court
reopenng said question at subsequent hearing over
the objection plaintiff and in allowing defendants attorney
file plea jurisdiction and atavt IN support OF SAM
and in allowing attorney SAID question again upon
plea and affidavit then his former ruling on
said question and defendants said plea all done without
plaintiffs and against his objection and without giving
him an opportunity to be represented by counsel IN sad argu
men, and during the absence of plaintiff counsel
within the discretion of the allow the
second plea to be presented question of jurisdiction to
subject always open and be raised at any Tune
There The plaintiff present IN court with one OF
his attorneys, Akae and objection is OF record as to the
absence of the other counsel.
Third Point of Law That said district magistrate erred in
compelling said plaintiff proceed the trial of SAID cause upon
Thursday November 30 1899 without the aid OF his counsel
without his painttf and his (pantf s. obJec
ton after said had continued by said judge Friday
November "a 1899 the request of defendants counsel who
represented that counsel for plaintiff and counsel tor defendant
had agreed to such continuance that said magistrate erred III thus
changing the date of hearing of said after he had notified
caused to be notified both the plaintiff and his counsel that sand
cause continued to Friday November "a 1892 without Civ
both plaintiff and his counsel reasonable notice of said change
OF date of the trial. and that after the said magistrate had
nued said aforesaid the instance of defendants
sell upon an agreement of counsel for plaintiff and defendant and
after notification and of plaintiff such continuance
and after notification plaintiffs counsel of such continuance
and without receiving any request communication
from either plaintiff his counsel in regard changing the date
OF SAID continuance the said district magistrate erred in chang
the date of said continuance upon the single request of de-
PENDANTS COUNSEL and in compelling plaintiff trial of said
without fifteen notice. without counsel without
preparation and without seeking the permission of
either plaintiff or his counsel
Numerous aidavits filed by parties from which we
gather that defendants attorney Poer, prior November 23
1899, requested of plaintiffs principal attorney Willard
tnuance of the November "a which assened by
HIM Later plaintiffs said attorney informed defendants aor-
ney that he withdrew his continuance The deputy
sheriff informed the district magistrate November 22d that
had received telephone defendants attorney to
postpone the Brown Friday o'clock November 9th
O ne rOuOIt Mr. CrODr axtnaC ofa,Jo
manager Honolulu and that Proser had that he had
talked with Willard agreed the case ON Friday
The district magistrate replied We if they agreed to
it. will be all right and then told deputy sheriff to
notify Brown the for Friday told of it.
On Thursday the district magistrate the house
continue the where he found Prosse and Cropp The dis
c magistrate then said he thought the case was to come u
Tomorrow Proer then said afterwards agreed
to try to-day. The district magistrate then asked Proer
where Willard and Prosser said he didn't know VIII
lard had wanted the after he had agreed post
one till Friday and that they agreed have up to-day
Thursday Willard eephoned but reached.
lk"ee liaWalan lawyer and one of plaintiffs attorneys,
present and asked by the district magistrate was ready
to go on with the and he said Yes" The on;
Prosser offered another adavs; Mikaee objected
to their being received The admitted them and the obec
ton to the jurisdiction sustained
ne aihav set forth other and much de
a but they clearly show that Mr. Willard was the prncnal
attorney for plaintiff and that the should not have been nro
eeded with Thursday in his absence Mr. Willard and
Mr. Proser members of the bar Supreme Court and
Mlkaee OF the district However, consider that
the point of law properly raised and certified Mr. Viii
lard has laid foundation by motion district court or
otherwise to reopen the that he might be heard However
he has been fully heard III this merits the Meas
and II 1t could be OF avail him reopen the might
be heard in the district court should be disposed so order
but IN tn" view that the plea to the jurisdiction of the district
court must he eventually sustained would entail unnecessary
expense and Cation and in the end the would have
recommended III the circuit court where the action be
brought (hdRCohc R0Rch Co. Z. An Or, Haw 275) and
where all similar trcpass actions which involve may involve
the question of title to real ought be brought in the first
instance.
Me IL ,utr Of
to plaintiff.
j. D. Willard for plaintiff