The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-12-03
JUSTICES
DISAGREED
Chinatown Cases
Will be Heard
Again.
CRIMINAL CASE
NOLLE PRESSED
Hilo Cases Were Given the Right
OF Way-CaIendar
Called.

decision, the case of Choy Look See v
Royal Insurance Co, will be argue
again. This is one of the Chinatown in
surance cases upon which depends tn
disposition Of about fifty similar suit
in the Circuit Courts
When that cause was reached in tn
calling of the Supreme Court calenda
yesterday morning, the attorneys ex
pressed surprise that it had been givel
a place on the docket, as it had beer
argued and submitted to the two jus
tees by agreement. Mr.. Robertson ask
ed if the Supreme Court had failed tc
agree on a decision, and the three JUS
tees looked from one to another with
knowing smiles Chief Justice Frea1
then announced that such was the case
and stated that the matter would have
to be presented again. After some ar
gument between the opposing counsel it
was finally agreed that the case should
| be argded again as to one important
feature to Chief Justice Frear sitting
alone and that the remainder of the
the briefs. Whichever way the Chief
Justice decides there is certain to be a
dissenting opinion.
The Hilo cases on the calendar were
called Immediately upon the opening of
court yesterday morning, according to
the rule announced at the recent session
of the Supreme Court.
In the case of Volcano s. & T Co. VS..
Hayashi ct al. it was agreed that briefs
should be submitted to two justices,
Justice Galbraith being disqualified:
The case of c. d. Pringle VS. Ha-
makua Sugar Cp. is also to be presented
before but two justices, Galbraith be-
ing disqualified in this case also The
matter will be argued this morning
The case of Hackfeld & Co. VS.. Gross
man was set for Thursday morning.
In the case of Kapiolani VS.. Lizzie X
Puahi motion to dismiss the appeal
has been made.
The two cases of c. Brown VS.. J. d.
Spreckels ct al. have been continued
until the January term.
The case of Territory of Hawaii VS..
Hi Took for violation of the liquor law
was nolle pressed by Attorney General
Dole.
\ motion to dismiss has been made
in the case of Elizabeth Greenwich VS.
NJ. G. Silva from the third circuit
Three cases were argued and sub
mitted at yesterdays session. imme-
diately after the calendar had been
called.
\ motion to dismiss was argued and
submitted in the case of A. Hamburg
VS. Iwamoto from South Hilo and the
cases of Il. Paakiki VS.. B. Owaanui and
of the Estate of a. A. Carniot vs.. Tax
Assessor were argued ana submitted
in the afternoon.
The following cases are on the calen- |
dar for the December session:
Volcano s & T Co. VS.. Hayashi ct al |
Error 10 Circuit Court. Fourth Circuit; |
Wise * Nickeus for plaintiff i'm error; |
Smith & Parsons for defendants in eror'. |
c. ID. Pringle vs.. Hlo Mercantile Co. [
Error to Circuit Court, Fourth Circuit:
Biting for plaintiff in error: Wise y
Nickeus for defendant in error.
Henry Smith VS.. Hamakua Mill Co.
Exceptions from Circuit Court, First Cir
,uit Dickey, Andrews Peters & Andra1e
for plaintiff; C. Brown and Hankey for
iefendant-appellant.
II Hackfeld & Co. VS.. NJ. E and ]. Z.
irossman. Appeal from Circuit Judge,
Fourth Circuit; Smith & Parsons and
Kinney. Ballou & McClanahan for plain
iff-appellant; Wise & Nickeus for de-
endants.
Territory of Hawaii VS.. Hi Took. Vi
lating license law; appeal from District
curt Of Lihue; Kaeo for defendaut-Ep-
ellant
Kapiolani vs.. Lizzie X Puahi. Appeal
rom Circuit Judge, First Circuit; Kin
ey Ballou & McClanahan for plaintiff !
lagoon & Thompson for defendant-ap-
%, ant
\. Hamburg VS.. IwGmoto ct al APP
cal from District Court of South HIP:
Wise x Nickeus for neutrality-suspicious.:
NTH K Parsons for defendants.
Territory of Hawaii VS. Wing Tung et ,
!. Appeal from District Court of South !
lilo; Wise & Nickeus for defendants-stp-
Giants; Attorney General for appellee q,
G. \. Brown VS.. ]. d. Spreckels ct al
RECEPTIONS from Circuit Court, Fourth
ircuit; Mag'on & Thompson and Smith
Parsons for plaintif-appellant Kin
ay. Ballou & Mechanism for defendant. r
c. \. Brown Us. J. ID. Spreckels ct al. :
from Circuit Court, Fourth
lrcuit: Magoon & Thompson and Smith
Parsons for plaintif-appellant Kin :
". Ballou * AIcClanahan for defend Z
Elizabeth .. Greenwich vs.. N. Silva
from Circuit Court. Third
rcuit; Smith & Parsons for plaintiff
,pcIlant.
Z. Paakiki vs.. b Owaanui. Exceptions F
en- Circuit Court. Third Circuit; smith
Parsons for defendant-appeilant.
-hoy Look See vs.. Royal Insurance
,. Exceptions from Circuit Court. FIRST
rcuit. Magoon & SilIiman for plaintiff; | r
iurston, Robertson & Wilder for de-
Richard r Richard W. Keahonui Rick
q. Error to Circuit Court. Fourth CIR e
it; Wise & Nickeus for plaintiff; Bit
* for defendant.
Estate OF a. a. Corniot vs. Tax Asses
r. Appeal from Tax Appeal Court, 81
rst Division.