The Hawaiian gazette., 1901-12-20
COURT NOTES.
(From Wednesdays daily)

The famous Kamaio Sugar Company
| case was the cause of another holly
contested legal battle in Circuit Court
yesterday afternoon. In this case Judge
Humphreys had been reversed by the
Supreme Court. the decree ordering
| that further evidence be taken upon
| the amended answer.
Judge Humphre vs. refused to take
! jurisdiction of the matter, and now thp
plaintiffs declare they will apply for Il
writ of mandamus to compel Hum
phreys tn 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
eral defendants We're represented by
Messrs. McClanahan, Robertson and
Hankey.
The defendants commended that Judge
Humphreys had no jurisdiction to
hear the case for Il second time, as
the organic act forbade that The
plaintiffs rebutted this argument with
the statement that this was not 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
cont tended also that the entire decision
of the Circuit Court had not been re-
yersed but that only IA motion To re-
mand for the hearing of further testi-
mony had been presented TO the SUI
preme Court. There was IA 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 81 of the organic
act provides that no judge shall sit on
appeal or new trial in any case In which
he may have given previous judgment
1.-The case of Hitchcock ct al. was
heard by the First Judge, and after such
hearing he rendered Il 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 sad:
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 be
that the Supreme Court thought that as
a matter of economy ma convenience.
1t would be better to have this trial be-
fore the judge from whom the appeal
was taken, but 1t does not appear that
their attention was called 20 the section
of the organic act to which l nave re-
ferred, nor did they, in deciding the case.
pass upon the right OF the First Judge
to hear the case upon such remand. 1t
is not clear to my mind that t 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 to the Circuit Judge Of the
First Circuit with instruction TO receive
such evidence as may be Offered under
the amendments to the pleadinSs and
for such further proceedings consistent
uyit ha ha
proper
IF the organic act prohibits me from
further sitting in this matter and the
Supreme Court does not require me to
do so, ii il not inconsistent with the fore
going for me to 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 in their technical sense. then I'M
questionably ! have jurisdiction. am
not sitting on appeal, nor am l sitting in
n new trial, for there Is no such thing
as new trial in an equity case. / am,
however. sitting in what Is equivalent TO
new trial"
While under the decision of the Su-
preme Court it may not he necessary to
hear the entire case over yet there are
some essential parts of the case which
would have to be presented.
u htneNe 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
property rights to judge who has al
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. II would seem
that the provision of the organic act
in question can have no application to
any case where 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.
Il do not believe ] have jurisdiction In
this matter, and being uncertain as to
the meaning of the mandate, / resolve
the doubt against my jurisdiction and
decline to proceed further"
BRIDE OF THIRTEEN WANTS
DIVORCE.
Jacintha j, Walsh, thirteen years of
age, and a bride of but two months, has
asked for a divorce from Patrick Walsh