The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-09-25

and if their marriage was failure
again. I told him 1 would not go back
to him, but he said he would return.
On cross-eXamnation the Defend
ants attorney secured an admissfonI
from the witness that she had had im-I
proper relations with other men.
The girls mother and aunt We're,
then put on the stand and corroborat-
ed her statements in every particular.
The defendant was then put on the
stand by plaintiff and testified that he
had property worth from $4,000 to $780,
900. AT the conclusion of this testi-
mony, defendant moved for non-suit,
which the court refused to allow.
Bannister was again put on the,
stand, and denied having ever made
any promises of marriage to plaintiff,
and stated further that he never had
corrected his testimony for plaintiff, as
Ito the value of his property, stating
THAT it was worth from $4,000 to $4,000
land he had by mistake added one
scipher too much. He also testified
point blank that the evidence of all
three women was a lie, and his de-
Emeanor on the stand made no friends
samong the jurymen. AT the conclu-
sion of the evidence, Mr.. De Bolt ar
ATTORNEY Peters presented the plain
stiff's case in an impassioned appeal for
1.-THE full measure of damages to which
tshe was entitled. In five minutes
Henry u. Austin appeared and asked
for further instructions as foreman,
but it was decided that the entire jury
must be present. Mr.. Austin then ask
Eff the jury was allowed to return a
Verdict fer plaintiff, and place the
do in OF
; the children, to be used for their sup
port and education. This, the court
said, was not possible, as the children
1 were not parties to the suit. The jury
was out but few minutes more
when they returned with the following
verdict:
I'VE, the jury, find for the plaintiff,
and assess her damages at $1,000. Hen
; ry T. Austin, foreman"
1t was afterwards learned that but
4 one ballot was necessary after the
first informal ballot, when one jury
man voted for defendant. The basis
! upon which the jury arrived at con-
Sclusion as to the value of the husband,
Twas the amount deemed necessary for
the maintenance and support of the
schildren, the woman figuring very lit
2tle in their consideration.
4 The following jury heard the case:
4 Edward Montgomery, E. Buffandeau,
Frederick Angus, Jas. r. Shaw, Eli J.
crawford, w. G. Ashley, Geo. r. Roe
Snitz, w. B. Jones, Harry q. Austin,
flames D. Cockett, William H. Holo-
skahiki and Edward Dekum.
Following the return of the verdict,
5Judge Gear adjourned court until
SThursday morning, because of the
sdeath of President Mckinley. All jury
smen are excused until that time, and
san cases set for today go over until
) Thursday.
NON-SUIT IN LAND CASE.
A non-suit was granted by Judge
sLittle yesterday morning in the case
5of Ropert VS.. Kauai. This was an ac-
ston on a lease, which has been on
rtrial in Titles court for over week.
COURT NOTES.
4 The petition of Hannah Ii, protesting
against the appointment Of Ching
Hong Wa Ali as administrator of the
ESTATE of Ching Ahi was filed yester-
Ebay. She alleges that Hee Lee is not
sthe widow of deceased; was never the
wife of deceased. The estate is valued
lat SGT 400.
John Wailehua is appointed guardian
sof the Kalamazoo minors.
The inventory of the Ehlers estate
twas filed yesterday, showing the value
Ito be about $4,000.
The list of interrogatories to be pro-
6pounded to S. Floodpage in the case
sof Marconis Wireless Telegraph Com
Ipany VS.. F. J. Cross, was filed yes
Iterday. They simply go into the pay
/ ment by defendant of any monies due
Gto plaintiff.