The Honolulu republican. [volume] (Honolulu, T.H.) 1900-1902, 1900-08-18
THE EIeEI c0yPi.s'f
else ONCE MORE.
Judge Silliman Sus-
tains the Demurrer
Of Defendants.
THE MEMORANDUM TO DECISION.
MERITS OF THE CASE NOT AZ
FEcTED BY TIE COURTS
RULING.
This is the Third Demurrer of the
Defendants Which Has Been
Sustained by the
Courts.
THE MEMORANDUM TO DECISION.

In the case of Thomas Mitner Har-
rison vs.J. A. Magoon. f. B. McStocker,
L. C. Ables and Dorothy Emerson.
Judge Silliman has sustained the de-
PENDANTS demurrer. In a memoran-
dunn attached to the decision the court
says:
AS to the first count, il being a
count on joint obligation, think that
the joint obligors should be Joined
as defendants as required by our sta
tute, especially in the absence of any
allegations in the complaint setting
forth that j. E. Cowsrt, J. Il. Kirkpat-
rick, George ID. Moore, A. Z. Pewter
and James Wolfenden are without the
jurisdiction of this court do not be-
heve that il is necessary to raise this
point by plea in abatement setting
forth that the parties not joined are
without the jurisdiction of the court.
"As to the second count. | do not
think it sets forth facts sufficient to
show that any valid judgment has been
rendered in the supreme court of New
Zealand, northern district, in that there
is no sufficient allegation of the service
of the process of the court upon the
defendants or otherwise setting forth
facts which show that said court, which
is court of a foreign jurisdiction, had
any jurisdiction of the parties against
whom said judgment is rendered.
II think on an inspection of the first
count of the declaration and the writ
ten memorandum of agreement, at
tached to the declaration and made a
part of the said count, it is apparent
that partnership relation was entered
into bet xeen the plaintiff and the de-
PENDANTS named in the declaration. to-
gether with certain other persons; and
| think that there is no sufficient al
legation contained in the declaration
of such an accounting between the
partners as would result in specified
Inundated sum due to the plaintiff
which he would be entitled to recover
in suit at law. Such an accounting
ought to show that the item of e2OO0
was considered by the partners, and
that the defendants who are sued pro-
missed to pay the same as In an account
stated.
II also believe that the allegations of
the complaint are not so definite and
certain as they should be made, espe-
cially with regard to the facts pertain
ing to the relation of the plaintiff and
defendants, the agreement that was en-
tered into between them, the account
ing or other steps that were taken TO
wind up the affairs of the partnership
or to show how the partnership termi-
mated if there was final end thereof,
and also in regard to the obtaining of a
Judgment in the New Zealand court,
and 1 think all the iurisdictional facts
should be averred.'
This decision is not on the merits of
the case. The plaintiff in his declara-
ton claimed damages from the defend
q ats for $4,000, for breach of contract
in carrying on business as co-partners
"A the colony of New Zealand and else
where, under the firm, name and style
of The African Pacific and Indian
Hagey Company.
Plaintiff alleged that if, at the expir-
| alton of six months stay in Tasmania
the Hagey business should be unsatis-
factory defendants were to give him
stock in the company Of the market
value of an amount equal to the sum
paid by plaintiff as a consideration
under said agreement, that was to say,
stock of the market value of e200O.
! The business was unsatisfactory.
The plaintiff, according tic complain
made demand for the s20O0 and de-
PENDANTS refused TO pay him the
am, 'unt.
This is the third demurrer filed in
Tho casa w the defendants, all OF which
have been su. stained by the courts,