The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-07-30
VERDICT FOR
DEFENDANT
Kaneohe Ranch
Co., Wins It's
Suit.
W. R. CASTLE IS
SUED FOR $4,000
Mary Montana Demands an Ac-
counting Case on
Yesterday.

The defendants were given a verdict
yesterday in the case of the Kapiolani
pany. Judge Gear sustaining the mo-
ton of defendant and ordering the jury
to return the following verdict:
I'VE, the jury in the above-entitled
cause, find for the defendants, Kaneoha
Ranch Company and Yum Quon.
| 81. E. PINKHAM,
| Foreman.
| The case has been on trial in the Cir
cult Court for over week, the ques-
ton which the case finally resolved it
self into being the title of the land
(which the defendants claimed through
Charles Harris. Friday the evidence
| PENDANTS moved for a verdict in their
favor. Judge Gear stated that under a
lprevious ruling he had made he was
| inclined to rule in favor of the defend
ant, and the plaintiffs attorneys began
their arguments to remove that impress
| SIGN.
In ordering the jury to return ver-
dict in favor of the Kaneohe Ranch Co.
the court said: 1.-The defendants have
asked for verdict on the ground Of
| lndisputed and adverse possession.
do not think the facts sufficient to go
before the jury, and to my mind they
show the defendants to have been in
undisputed possession. If the jury
y, tot fny ha r,1a int IF
should be 1nipelled to set it as &c rs
contrary to the evidence. l feel that l
have no right to submit the case to the
jury, though 1 would gladly do it and
relieve myself of the responsibility. I
snail instruct the jury to return YER
dict for the defendants"
The jury was then called into the
court room and returned the verdict as
given above, though not without reluct-
ance on the part of some, who evident
ly did not understand the proceeding.
The plaintiff excepted to the ruling of
the court and will probably appeal.
SUIT AGAINST w. R. CASTLE.
Immediately at the conclusion of the
above trial the case of Mary Montana
VS.. w. r. Castle, for an accounting.
was called.
The plaintiff claims that she owned a
piece of land in Manoa valley consist
ing of eleven acres, which Mr.. Castle
sold to VIM. c. Achi for the sum of
S25, 900. She further alleges that she
owed to the defendant sums which he
was to keep out of the money obtained
for the land. That he sent her a state
ment showing a balance due her of S.,
900, which he was to invest for her for
a term of three years at per cent, TAX
ing mortgage on the dairy property
of Mr.. Achi She further claims that
she never consented to the investment,
and that she has been paid but $500 of
the amount due, and makes a claim of
$1,000, which it is alleged the defendant
refuses to pay.
In reply to this statement the de-
PENDANT alleges that all his actions were
sanctioned by the plaintiff, whose af-
fairs were entangled with those of her
husband He held mortgages on the
land in question which were to be paid
from the sum realized from the sale of
this land, and was made on condition
that he would relieve plaintiff of the
mortgage. He settled this matter by
crediting the balance to Mrs. Montana,
and states that he has loaned to plain
tiff various sums of money and paid
$70O, so that he now alleges that they
are his debtors to the amount of over
$780,
On request of defendants attorneys
and of Mr.. Achi the latter was placed on
the stand for the defense as the first wit
ness. He told of the transactions he had
had in the purchase of the land in ques-
ton and told of several meetings he held
with defendant loi
with Mr.. Montana. He said he told the
latter that he had no cash and would
give him mortgage for $4,000 on the
land itself and of 5000 on the dairy
property he owned.
The plaintiff told her story clearly and
concsely and said she had refused to
accept a mortgage for the sale of the
property as 1t did not mention her name,
but that of Castle as trustee, and that
she wanted the cash. She said that
when Mr.. Weaver came to her with the
deed she refused to sign it; that she
wanted receipt for the money she owed
to defendant and which was to be Iqui-
dated by this sale. She denied also hav-
Ing had any conversation with Senator
Achi regarding the land, and said that
when shown the mortgage by Mr.. Weav-
er she told him 1t was no good as not
having either her name Of that of her
husband.
She denied also having made Mr. Castle |
her trustee and said that every time
she had called with reference to the
money still due her she had been told |
that Mr.. Castle was not in, and she found
it impossible to see MIN. Every time
however Mr.. Weaver who is in Mr.. |
Castles Office, told her that it was all |
right and that she would get her money. |
Finally she said she called so often that |
Mr.. Weaver became scared and sent
his wife to meet her. She said she had
made several demands for the money, |
one time in writing but had never re-
ceived it until now, she was told that !
he did not owe 1t to her.
Miss Mary Dawson, daughter of Mr.. |
Montana, was put on the stand and re-
lated the story of visit she had made
to the office of Mr.. Castle with her
father and had heard him demand the
money. Mr.. Campbell was in the office
and told them that Mr.. Castle could not
be seen.
A. A Montana was the last witness
for the plaintiff and he became badly