The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-05-22

Sourt was occupied all day yesterday
with the argument and matter in con-
neeuon with the reports of the grand
jury on the charges of bribery in the
Legislature. The particulars appear
elsewhere
JUDGE EDINGS' COURT.
| The assumpsit case of Schweitzer
& Co. VS.. Chas. j. Fishel was taken up
by Judge Edings yesterday, jury being
waived. F. w. Hankey appeared for
the plaintiff and Magoon & Thompson
for the defendant
The case was argued and submit
| ted before the noon hour, and the mat
ter was taken under consideration by
the court.
The case of Lum Sung Company ct al
| vs. Marian G. Luning, which is an &C.
ton on contract, came up in the after
noon, Magoon & Thompson appearing
for the plaintiff and F. w. Hankey for
the defendant.
The contract upon which the suit
was based was objected TO by counsel
for defendant, upon the ground that it
vas signed by only one member of the
company bringing suit, and upon mo-
ton of Mr.. Hankey the court ruled
that the contract could not be admit
ted in evidence. This ruling practical
ly defeated the plaintiffs case, and
counsel for plaintiff rested the matter
with the court; counsel for the defend
and rested also, and moved the court
to direct the jury to return verdict
for nontsuit This the court did, and
the jury found for the defendant The
jury in the case was as follows: E. c.
Holstein, Solomon Peck, Walter A.
Hardy, Albert E. Lloyd Solomon D.
Koki, Thos. j. Quinn, VIM. M Cunning
ham, VIM. B. Rice, VIM. II. McInerny,
Walter M. Pomroy, James L. Aholo
and Vincent Fernandez.
COURT NOTES.
John s. Prendergast, administrator of
the estate of Kaalewai Pearson, has FL
ed his final account, charging himself
with $500 and asking to be allowed $780,
and petitioning for allowance of accounts
and final distribution and discharge. An
order has been issued giving notice that
the hearing of such petition will be had
on Monday, July 1. at 10 o'clock a. m.
The defendant in the case of j. A Ma
exceptions and transcript on appeal
DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS.
In the action for divorce of Libana de
Nobrega VS.. Sylvano de Nobrega, the de-
PENDANT yesterday filed an answer to the
amended complaint of plaintiff
In addition to the general denial of all
the allegations of the complaint, the de-
PENDANT alleges that on April Ii, 1899, he
conveyed by deed, in fee simple, to Joe
de Nobrega, son of plaintiff and defend
ant, a certain house and lot in Nuuanu
valley of the value of $500, with the OBJ
ject, purpose and understanding that the
same would Immediately be conveyed to
the plaintiff for her sole use, benefit and
maintenance; the said premises Were so
conveyed on April Is. and that she has
ever since been in possession of same.
Also that from September IS. 1898. to
January Is, 1901, defendant paid TO plain
tiff the sum of S. per week for their sup
port and maintenance, and that ever
since the latter date he has been at all
times ready and willing to pay the same,
although plaintiff has failed TO demand
and receive sad IS per week.
]. M. Long is attorney for the defend
ant.
CHRISTLEY VS.. MACON DECISION.
The Supreme Court yesterday render
ed decision in the equity case of Thomas
Christley VS.. j. A. lagoon and Emme-
line M. Magoon, which was submitted on
December 2e, 1900. The decision was in
favor of Christley.
The case was a suit to cancel a deed
dated November 2, 1898, from plaintiff to
defendant Emmeline NJ. Magoon of 2H
acres of land on the easterly side of Fort
street between School and Vineyard
streets, in Honolulu; the consideration
named in the deed was $4,000, although
the real consideration was an oral prom
Use to pay the plaintiffs debts, amount
ing to $4,000 and a written promise to
pay the plaintiff SIS per month for the
remainder of his life.
The deed was held to have been pro-
cured through undue influence. as shown
by the existence of the confidential re-
lationships of attorney and client and
principal and agent between the parties.
the mental weaknesses Of the plaintiff
and the inadeauacy of the consideration.
The grounds relied upon are fraud and
mistake.
The opinion is by Justice Frear, and
Judge Edings sat in place of Justice
Perry, disqualified. Hatch and Silliman
and j. T. DE Bolt were attorneys for the
plaintiff, and Kinney, Ballou & McClana
han for defendant.
The syllabus of Justice Frear's opinion
shows that for two years preceding the
execution of the deed J. A. Magoon had
been the plaintiffs agent in respect to
the plaintiffs property in question. col
lecting rents, paying taxes, ETC., and adj
yising him professionally In matters of
law; that plaintiff trusted him implicitly;
that plaintiff was simple and absent
minded and susceptible to influence that
plaintiffs wife had left him and that he
was worried with money troubles and
cares; that he was Sc years of age, and
was carpenter and a dairymans, that he
worked hard and was troubled with i'll
health; that he was greatly discouraged;
that his property had been purchased
with his own hard earnings; that on
October 81, 1898, the defendants paid
plaintiff a visit and after talking over
the plaintiffs troubles, an agreement was