The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-12-18
DECLINES TO
HEAR CASE
The KamaIo Sugar
Matter Must
Wait.
HUMPHREYS
WILL NOT ACT
interesting Point is Raised-Thir-
teen Year Old Bride Sues
for a Divorce.

The famous Kamalo Sugar Company
case was the cause of another hotiy
contested legal battle in Circuit Court
yesterday afternoon. In this case Judge
Humphreys had been reversed by the
F.. Supreme Court, the decree ordering
that further evidence be taken upon
| the amended answer.
Judge Humphreys refused SO take
Jurisdiction of the matter. and now the
plaintiffs declare they viii apply for a
writ of mandamus TO compel Hum
phreys to hear the case.
! When the case was called up for fur
Their proceedings yesterday morning.
Attorneys Hatch. Magoon and Stewart
appeared for plaintiffs. while the sew
eraI defendants were represented by
Messrs McClanahan, Robertson and
! Hankey.
The defendants contended that Judge
Humphreys had no Jurisdiction to
! hear the case for a second time, as
the organic act forbade that The
! plaintiffs rebutted this argument with
The statement that this was not a ne"
trial. but simply an order from the
Supreme Court for the hearing of fur
Their testimony. and that the case mad
been but partly submitted before. They
contended also that the entire decision
Of the Circuit Court had not been re-
versed. but that only motion to r@-
mand for the hearing of further testl-
mony had been presented TO the Su-
preme Court There was running
cross-fire between the six attorneys.
three on either side, for almost the
entire morning
In refusing TO assume jurisdiction, the
Court said: Section "a of the Organic
act provides that no judge shall sit on
appeal or new trial in any case In "nlch
ne may have given previous JUG hieh''
1.-THE case of Hitchcock ct al. was
heard by the First Judge, and after such
hearing ne rendered a final decree upon
the merits of the case, from which an
appeal was taken
referring TO the decision of the Su-
preme Court. Judge Humphreys said:
In no part of the mandate referred
to is reference made to the First circuit
Judge. of the First Judicial Circuit The
reference is entirely to the Circuit Judge
of the First Judicial Circuit Ii may De
that the Supreme Court thought that as
q matter Of economy and convenience
IL would be better to have this trial be
was taken, but it does not appear that
their attention was called % tine section
Of the organic act 20 which | nave re-
ferrcd. nor did they, in deciding the case
pass upon the right of the rtrSt Judge
to hear the case upon such ~eUlaun- IL
is not clear TO my mind that I was IN
tended that the First Judge should retry
the case
1T will be observed that the decree
appealed from is reversed, and the case
is remanded 10 the Circuit Judge or the
First Circuit with instruction TO receive
such evidence may be Offered under
the amendments to the pleadinSs and
for such further proceedings consistent
with the foregoing review as may be
proper
IF the organic act prohibits me from
further sitting in this matter and the
Supreme Court does not require me to
do so, IL = not inconsistent with the fore
going for me 10 decline jurisdiction
THE words appeal and new trial may
or may not have been used In technical
sense by Congress. If they are to be
taken I'm their technical sense. then I'M
questionably ! have jurisdiction. l am
not sitting on appeal. nor am I sitting in
a new trial. for there is no such thing
as new trial in an equity case. am
however. sitting in what is equivalent to
a new trial"
while under the deciso of the Su-
preme Court il may not be necessary to
hear the entire case over, yet there are
some essential parts Of the case which
would have to be presented.
Il believe the purpose of the organic /
act was to give the parties the right To
have their case adjudicated by some
Judge who had not expressed himself up
on the merits of the entire case. The !
parties, either plaintiff or defendant
should not be compelled to submit their /
fT1fr vi l.
ready passed upon the merits OF the en-
tire case. The decree in this case was
reversed because the judge declined to |
receive certain evidence. If the same
Judge can retry this case, it would seem
that the provision of the organic act (
i'm question can have no application 10
any case where q new trial is granted on ,
account of the error of the trial judge in
rejecting evidence. find no such ex-
ception justified by the language OF the |
act.
II do not believe I have jurisdiction in |
this matter. and being uncertain as TO |
the meaning OF the mandate. I resolve
the doubt against my jurisdiction and
decline to proceed further
BRIDE OF THIRTEEN WANTS
DIVORCE.
Jaciutha J. Walsh. thirteen years OF
age. and a bride of but two months. has
asked for divorce from Patrick Walsh
on the ground Of extreme cruelty The
parties were married in Wailulai, oct t
1901 bv Rev Father Sherman Schrad. |
Charges of repeated assaults are made,
and il * alleged thar because OF eNcis- |
Sive cruelty the child-bride i in the |
hands Of physicians.
An injunction prayed for restraining de-
C.udant from interfering with plaintiff
personal property was denied by Judge
HrmuhrpyS.