The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-08-31
MILLS Of
DIVORCE
interesting Noon
Session Of
Court.
THE QUEEN IS
SUED AGAIN
Promoter of Oceanic Gas & Elec-
trio Co. Awarded So, 900
by Judge Gear

yesterday during the noon session.
In the first, Maria Palikapu VS.. Bere-s
| nabo Palikapu, separation was asked
on the ground that the defendant was
afflicted with an incurable disease
| Qeprosy), and had been confined at
Molokai since 1898. The summons had
been served upon the defendant at the
| settlement, and he had prepared his
own answer, writing it in Hawaiian on
a plain piece of brown paper.
/ He set 10 as grounds FOR defense
| that the marriage had been celebrated
by Catholic priest according to the
Catholic religion and the laws of God,
and that the Catholic church permits
of no divorce.
In answer to the contention that the
divorce should be granted because of
leprosy, he replied that 1t has never
been proven that leprosy is an incura-
BILE disease.
Third, he argues that whoever has
been joined by the laws of God and the
Catholic church, cannot be torn apart
by any law of man.
The court heard the evidence of the
complainant, and also that OF Secretary
CharIock, of the Board of Health, who
testified to the records as showing the
defendant had been sent to Molokai;
Judge Gear granted the divorce, hold
ing that leprosyr was an incurable
disease.
ANOTHER FIGHT FOR CHILDREN.
Another very interesting story was
unfoded in the divorce case of Joseph
NJ. Lopez VS.. Eyalina Lopez. Adultery
is the charge in this case, and this is
the second suit instituted by the same
mar N the first hearing before
Judge Davis a divorce was refused the
husband, but he was appointed guar
dian of the children, which Were to be
placed in school here, and to : be
equally accessible to either parent. In
the answer filed (there was no defense
in COURT the woman denied each and
levery allegation. She was charged with
writing letters to other men, OF rath-
| er tender and endearing nature,
and this much was proven by the pres
| entation of the letters to the court.
! 1t appears from the answer filed In
| both the first and second proceedings.
that the husband carried the children
with him to San Francisco, and that
Eahe mother failing in an attempt to
| get a restraining order here, followed
on the next steamer to the Coast,
| where she tried to get possession of
| the children. The husband attempted
| then to carry the two children back to
! Honolulu, but Nas stopped by an order
| of the Superior Court and spent se,--
eral days in Jail as result. The
whereabouts of the children at present
| is not disclosed in the pleadings.
Though the mother made voiumfnous
answers and denials to the charges of
immortality, she offered no defense TO
the proceeding in court yesterday, and
was not present. The complainant at
tempted to prove his charges by two
| n Of Il
cia admitted improper relations with
defendant, and the court then ordered
the minutes of his evidence to be SEM
ii the high sheriff for action The wit
ness was severely scored by the court
who told the attorneys he was not in
clined to believe man who would ge
a woman into trouble, and then come
| into court and testify against her. Ht
said he had some regard for the Primo,
. of Wales, but he couldn't have for THU
witness. The other witness agains
the woman refused to incriminate him
self. The court reserved his decision
The woman is in San Francisco, ant
the husband is employed by the ocean
ic Steamship Company as u steward
The answer of the defendant alleges
that he receives a salary of s25 pc
month, and receives in tips an averag
of Si5 month additional.
THE QUEEN IS SUED.
Another suit was instituted yesterda.
by Ane Hilo VS., LiliuokaIani to re
strain a foreclosure of mortgage, and
| temporary injunction was grantees
against the Queen by Judge Gear t
prevent the sale of the property. II
the petition 1t is alleged that d. Max
gave a mortgage to F. M. Hatch TO
SIS in 1870. at Is per cent, which wa
, ! in 1881 assigned to defendant. Tn,
plaintiff further alleges that she ha
lpaid the amount of the claim, and tina
5 Liliuokafani has no claim to the prop
: erty. She further alleges:
That 1t has recently come to@th
knowledge of the plaintiff that sait
, mortgages were not discharged, an,
that the said Liliuokalani rraudulently
with intent to cheat and defraud plain
[ tiff, and without the knowledge OF thi
plaintiff, or said d. Malo. procured a.
s assignment to her of the said mort
cages hereinabove described, wherea
n it was the duty of the said Liliuokala
- nj to pay the amounts secured by tn
said mortgages and procure a cancel
lation thereof as she had previousl
agreed to do"
COURT DECISIONS.
In the case of E. l.. Taylor VS.. NJ. n
Cohen. Judge Gear rendered verde
yesterday morning for plaintiff H
held that the contract was admitte
. by defendant, who claimed in defens
= that the contract had been abrogate6
The court held that by this admission
the burden of proof was shifted to de
PENDANT to prove, that the agreemen
had been rescinded, and this was no
proven. The suit was for the posses
sion of $50 shares of stock in tn
Oceanic Gas and Electric Company
which plaintiff was to receive as hi
share in promoting the eDterprise TIL
par value of the stock was $1,000 an
: Taylor claimed that he had never re
Z ceived it.
In the matter of the estate of Ma
! kanoe, the court ordered another sale
refusing to confirm the sale of tn
property to Montana for $500. TIL
land will now be sold at private sal