The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1901-08-20

| Would he not be qualified to render
a decision in the cases not prev !ously
passed upon by him."
We have not considered the question
at all as yet"
IF the Supreme Court does hold that
Judge Perry is disqualified to sit in these
4 cases, could the two remaining justices
render a decision?"
| only in case of agreement by the at
torneys Interested"
1 what course could be followed in the
event that the attorneys did not agree
to such a courSe?'
The case would have to be opend for
further argument, and some member Of
the bar would be asked to sit upon tn.
bench"
In connection with argument made by
the attorneys for the prisoners, in regard
to the alleged disqualification of Judge
Perry, Attorney General Dole yesterday
filed the following reply.
REPLY BRIEF FOR TERRITORY OF
/ HAWAII.
1.-THE point raised by brief filed this
morning, that Mr.. Justice Perry is dis
qualified to sit in consequence of having
sat at nisi prius in the original criminal
trials. does not apply to the petition OF
All Oi, Judge Stanley having sat at that
trial '..u.
The Territory prays a reasonable time
In which to examine the law and prepare
brief upon said point, in so far as Il,
pertains to the other petitioners"
The brief of the attorneys for the pris
oners In this same case was filed with
the Supreme Court yesterday following
out the general line of argument made
to the court orally. The arguments ~sr.
reported fully at that time
. HARRISON V. MAGOON
At the opening of court yesterday az
Ia noon Judge Gear took up the case of
James NJ Harrison VS.. J. A. Magoon F
H. McStocker, l.. G. Ables, Dorothea En-
erson, +. c. Dowatt, J. II. Kirkpatrick,
\. r.. Pewter. j. Wolfaden and George
ID. Moore, an action for damage grow
ing out of an alleged breach of contract
made in New Auckland in 1897 There
was some objection on the part OF
the complainant to the answer OF de-
'ondant, and it looked for a time as II
tie case was to he continued until de-
p">iiions could he obtained from New
Zealand. The court refused to allow the
amended answer, and the case was then
proceeded with on the evidence. The fol-
lowing was the jury selected for the
hearing: II. Bertelmann, A. w Pearson
7. c.. Jones, ]. S. Walker, F. Harvey
Isaac l.. Cockett f. X. Hanapi, r. c.
''''''' 'No' Sc .NddNddhOd, -. Is. hpntar,
W. +. irving, j. Kunewa.,
CHILDREN [ OF MINISTER KING
WANT MONEY.
Mrs. Charlotte King, widow of tn. La.
Minister of the Interior James A. King,
hied "A petition in court yesterday asking
larger allowance for the support of th,.
minor children She claims that the
guardian. J. 70. Dightfoot, has allowed
her but six dollars a month for each of
the hVe children, or thirty dollars in all,
which, it is alleged, lis much below the
amount required foratheir support. She
alleges that she has been forced to take
money out of her own income for the
support and education of the children;
that she mas been III and involved in debt
because of her heavy expenditures for
| the children and herself. She asks that
| she be allowed thirty dollars per month
Tor the support of each child. 1t Is fur
ther alleged in the petition that the es-
tate is worth about $4,000, and much OF
1t Is unimproved real estate which Is not
bringing in the amount of revenue that
II should She asks also for an order
to compel Lightfoot to make new leases
OF the property so that the income might
be increased.
SUPREME COURT DECISION.
The Supreme Court yesterday affirmed
'"e ue'isioii VI tnt circuit Court In the
case OF Waikiki Sugar Co. vs. Claus
Spreckels and the Hawaiian Commercial
and Sugar Co. The suit was begun in
1877 for the acquisition of a right of way
Tor water way and fiume through Claus
spreckels' land He executed a convey
ance OF the land to the Hawaiian Sugar
Co., and upon application the suit was
dismissed by the court as to him An
appeal was taken by the plaintiff from
this action. Later the plaintiff was Civ
en- the right OF way through the disputed
land by the court, who assessed the dam
age at 800 From this decision the de-
PENDANT appealed. In conclusion the
court, in an opinion written by Chief
Justice Frear. says: r-... ="
We have considered only the questions
raised by the parties and not certain
other Questions which naturally suggest
themselves, but which We are led to be.
lieve the parties have Intentionally omit
ted to raise. s'- s"'H 70
the DEFENDANTS appeal Is dismissed.
me plaintiff states that II does not care
TO press its appeal in case the defend.
ants appeal is not sustained Its an
peal also Is dismissed on the ground that