The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-12-19
CAN GET
No DIVORCE
Supreme Tribunal
SuStainS the
Court.
MANDAMUS FOR
HUMPHREYS
The Annual Report of Bishop
Museum Trustees Shows
Profit.

The Supreme Court yesterday gave
an opinion sustaining the Circuit
Court in refusing to grant divorce Il
Corrine Bartlett from Ward 5 Bart
lett. The grounds for divorce were ex-
tIeme cruelty and habitual fntemper-
ance but Judge Humphreys held tbs
evidence insufficient TO warrant a sepa-
ration.
In the syllabus of the opinion writ
ten by Chief Justice F'rear. it is held:
Extreme cruelty for purposes of di-
VCrce does not require personal VIC
lence. 1t may exist if there is bodily
injury. whether actual or apprehend-
ed, whether direct or Indirect. through
mental suffering. Quere. whether men
tai suffering alone is sufficient.
False and malicious charges of
adultery may amount to extreme cru
city, but they do nbt necessarily under
all circumstances. In determining
whether they amount to cruelty or not,
ii is proper to consider whether they
were made in the presence of third per
sons or not, and whether they resulted
in bodily harm or an apprehension Of
/ bodily harm or not.
/ "A charge of unfaithfulnesS may or
may not amount to q charge of adul-
| terry, according to the circumstances.
THE opinion of a trial court in a
I divorce case should be considered as a
/ whole. Parts may be explained by
other parts Inaccuracies in parts
( would not necessitate a new trial when
there is no reason to suppose that a
new trial might result differently.
Under our statutes i decree of di-
] vorce has the effect of a verdict Of a
! jury, and cannot be reversed as con
trary to the evidence. if there is suf
/ dcient evidence to support it.
MANDAMUS FOR HUMPHREYS.
Application was made yesterday to
the Supreme Court for writ of man
damus to compel Judge Humphreys TO
act in the Kamalo Sugar Company
case. The petition was filed with the
clerk. but did not bear the signature
Of Chief Justice F'rear. and no date for
the hearing of the application was
made. The petition alleges that a. =.
Humphreys. first judge of the First
Circuit Court has refused To comply
with the order of the Supreme Court
requiring him TO hear additional evil
dence in the case of Hitchcock ct al.
vs.. Hustace ct al. and that he still
refuses 40 take jurisdiction in the mat
ter. An order to show cause is asked
UNANIMOUS VERDICTS UNNECES-
SARY.
The Supreme Court yesterday decid-
ed in the case OF .. d. Pringle vs.. Hil0
Mercantile Company that unanimous
VeTdictS are unnecessary in civil pro
Ceedings when both parties to Il suit
agree to majority verdict The case
was presented To two Justices. Frear
and Perry. al the December term, Jus
tice GaIbraith being disqualified In
the opinion written by Chief Justice
Frear. ne says:
The only assignment OF error that need !
be noticed is that the verdict OF the jury |
was rendered by nine only of the twelve /
jurors the other three dissenting. The !
action was trespass and was tried at the |
last January term of the Circuit Court. |
Whatever force the former statutes of |
Hawaii, which permitted verdicts to be !
rendered by nine of twelve jurors. may
have had during the period intervening I
between the annexation of these Islands /
to the United States and the establish
ment OF the Territorial government (see
Haw. Star Newspaper Co ". SaYlor y
Haw.. "a; Eek parte All oil ante. 534). it
would seem To be clear that since the
latter event unanimity of verdcts has
been essential. See Org. Act. Sections
. 6. -: American Publishing Co. W.
Fisher. 1GG L. s. 6iG: Sprinsville VS.
Thomas. Id, 7O7: Thompson ". Utah, 10
ID. iSf; Capital Traction Co. vs.. Hof, Ia
Id. l.
But since. i'm a civil case trial by
jury may be waived altogether. one ele-
meut. namely, that Of unanimity. MAJ
likewise he waived. See Evans ". Gee,
II Pet. 80; Cowles ". buchanan, Ia,
lGl.
In this case the plaintiff in error must
Ice held 10 have waived the requirement
Of unanim,ty. for the instruction Of The
court to the jury that verdicr might
be- rendered by nine jurors, was given At
his express written request
The writ is dismissed and the c2se re-
rnitted to the circuit Couvt.
(SigD W. +. FREAR.
CSigD \ PERRY.
G. G. BITING.
For Plaintiff.
f. W. HANKEY.
For Defeudan-.
COULDN'T PAY ALIMONY.
Francisco de Sa. who failed to pay
aIimony of 81 a week to his divorced
wife under the order of the court, was
before Judge Humphreys yesterday TO
show cause why he should not be- pun
shed for contempt. De IA il sickly
looking Portuguese while his former
y ife is a handsome girl. of hardly more
than fifteen Summers. The defendant
Explained to the court that he had been
earning barely enough to support him.
self. and il took all the money ne had
10 pay the old bills left after their
brief matrimonial experience. His to-
tai income for three weeks had been
,16 30 and he had expended more than
hat amount for living expenses. He
said that he was living in three rooms.
DOR which he paid Sc a month. and that
his wife had taken all the furniture.
excepting the stove. He said he need
I'll such a large establishment because
ne must keep the kitchen utensils
and his landlord refused
10 rent less than three rooms. He had
expended during the three weeks since !
divorce. 81 for washing. $3.50 for milk.