The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-11-07

said he was trying to separate the
combatants in a Hawaiian Chinese riot.
All PAX said that ne was also trying to
separate the parties. The court in
passing sentence stated: "A man who
undertakes to make peace with an axe
generally fails. 1t is the duty of this
court TO protect officers in the discharge
of their functions. ! have no doubt that
the police do abuse and have abused the
power invested in them by law, and act
without discretion, using brute force
where kindly coercion would serve the
same purpose. This is not the case here
however, and the court will impose a
fine Of 800"
ANOTHER FAULTY COMPLAINT.
Another case fell through yesterday
because of a faulty complaint in the
lower court. At first no complaint could
be found but after a careful examina-
ton the missing document was discov-
cred among some other papers, and the
case of Poloaiea, charged with selling
liquor without license was called. The
following jury w9s drawn to hear the
case: B. r. Campbell, William Her
rick, G. Livingston, James KahaIepua,
Alexander X. Aona, z. K. Blake. Her
mann Levy, L. A. Rostin. David Not
ley, William G. Rowland, G.. K. Kaia,
James M. Sims.
The evidence against him was given
mainly by informers and the case was
about TO go to the jury, when 1t was
discovered that the complaint was in
sufficient, in that it did not set out
facts constituting a public offense. The
court thereupon ordered the jury to re-
turn verdict for defendant. Mr.. Dout-
HIT also stating that the Information
was null and void. The court remark
ed in discharging the jury: The Of
Tense seems to have been fomented by
the police and they are as cersurable as
is the defendant"
BOND FORFEITED.
In the case of B. r. Jones alias Rice,
and r. c. Henshall alias Hodge, a nolle
prosequi was entered in the case of the
first defendant. The bond of the lat
ter was declared forfeited. 1t was sign
ed by ]. w. Allen as surety. The de-
PENDANTS were charged with assault and
battery.
INCOME TAX AGAIN.
An entirely new question is raised In
the suit of Frank Halstead VS.. ]. w.
Pratt, tax assessor. on an agreed state
ment of facts submitted to the Supreme
Court yesterday. Plaintiff claims that on
June l. 1901, he received from the Ha-
waiian Trust Company, administrators of
the estate of Robert Halstead. deceased.
the sum of s2O.6S1.17. as his share of the
estate, and that on May q. 1901, the ad-
of the estate had paid to the
collector OF internal revenue under the
provisions of Section g OF Chapter AS |
Revised Statutes of the United States. a |
tax of S075 on each 800 of said share, |
amounting Sl55 10
That on the I'D day of July, 1901. the |
plaintiff made a return of the income re- |
ceiyed by him to the assessor, and under /
the heading of exemptions placed the J
amount Of $4,000, as -"bequests and inner 4
tances otherwise taxed as SUCH"
1t is further alleged that plaintiff re- !
,eived notice from the assessor dlsal-
owing the deduction claimed.
The points IN controversy are given as [
plaintiff claims that under the provi-
sions of Section 4, of Act 20 of the SEES |
sion of 1901, said distributive share in the
estate of Robert Halstead received by !,
plaintiff, is exempt from taxation as part
81 the income received by him during the
period aforesaid, on the ground that 1t Is
IN inheritance otherwise taxed as such.
within the meaning of the law.
Defendant claims that such distrihu-
i've share received by plaintiff Is sub
o, Session Laws of 1901
AN adjudication is requested upon the :!
GLOWING question:
rs the said distributive share received
" plaintiff from the estate of Robert
deceased, subject to taxation :
lnder the terms of Act %, Session Laws I
# 1902"
HONOLULU BREWERY SUED.
A series of suits involving the plant OF
he Honolulu Brewing and Mating Com
ANY were instituted in the Circuit Court
afternoon.
The Western Iron Works of San Fran
sco makes Victor Hoffman, the con-
ractor who erected the building, and the
honolulu Brewing and Mating Company
10Th defendants 10 claim for lien upon
he building for S12, 429. In the suit ii is
-ileged that claimant carried out its part
# the contract, in furnishing and erect
ng such steel and cast iron work as the I
'lans required, for which It was to re-
GIVE the sum OF Sl9,425 OF this amount
Iictor Hoffman has paid $685., leaving
till due the sum of s12.429. after deduct
ng all just credits and offsets.
NiehaUs Brothers Company, of West
Cal, also sues the Honolulu
Brewing and Mailing Company as own
T. and Victor Hoffman original con- /
ractor, for the sum of S1.4o0. Plaintiff ;
laims to have furnished building mate :
ials such as doors and frames. window
ash, glass partition. wainscoting. mould
ngs and other mill work materials, the
greed contract price being 81 400. of
which 5000 has been paid by defendant,
-ictor Hoffman. I
Finally. Victor Hoffman claims Of the {
honolulu Brewing and Mailing Company
mechanics lien of Sl3, 20S.ll. which is
opposed TO include the two claims made :
bove. :
The claimant alleges that he com
lenced TO furnish said labor and mate ,
ial on the 1st day Of January. 1900. the !
Of which said labor. and the !
furnishing of said material ceased on the
n day OF August, 1901.
That the said Victor Hoffman Claims {
lien and privileges upon and against !