The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-03-08
WAS DISCHARGED
WITHOUT CAUSE
Original Suit was for 5000 and
Plaintiff Now Asks for a
New Trial.

THE CASE of Chas. E. Bartlett
against the Hawaiian Carriage Man
= ufacturing Company, decision was
made yesterday by the Supreme Court
on a bill of exceptions from the First
Circuit Court The damages sued Cor
were 5000, but the evidence showed that
the actual loss was only Sab. Counsel
for plaintiff admitted that the sum sued
for was excessive, and asked permission
to file a remttitur for the excess of
$1S7, which was given.
The Court held, however, that the re-
mittitur should not be allowed to avoid
the granting of new trial Kinney,
Ballou & McClanahan represented the
defendants, while W. o. Smith and r. D.
Mead appeared for the plaintiff.
The substance of the opinion, as writ
ten by Judge Perry. is as follows:
| That the plaintiff brought an acton in
the Circuit Court of the FIRST Circuit,
wherein ne alleged that the defendant
entered into an agreement with himself
whereby plaintiff was to work in a stat
! ed employment for defendant In this
City for the term of one year commenc-
! ing with the Sd day of April 1899, at an
!
the defendant, on the 9th day of May,
1889, wrongfully discharged him f. ON
his employ.
claim was then set up for damages
in the sum of 81 600, and, the case being
submitted to the jury, a verd ct was rem
dered in favor of the p.aintiff for the
sum of 5000. A motion for a new trial
was then made and overruled.
The case went to the court on three
exceptions: % to that portion of the
charge of the presid ng Judge w erein
the jury was instructed that the burden
of proof is on the defendant corp ration
to show that the plaintiff might have
obtained other employment in order to
reduce the damages, if the plaintiff is
entitled to recover; W to the verdict
on the ground that it was contrary to
the law and to the evidence and to the
weight of the v-denCe; and 80 to the
overruling of the motion for new trial
which motion was based on the second
ground above stated, and on the further
ground that the damages awarded in the
verdict are excessive.
! The trial court, in addition to giving
the instruction excepted to, charged the
bury that If they found that the plaintiff
was entitled to recover the measure OF
damages would be the amount of the
wages at the rate specified in the agree
ment from the date of the discharge tc
the end of the agreed time of service
earned. or by the use of reasonable ef
fort and diligence could have earned
during the period.
. The Court assumed that the plaintiff
had used due diligence and had not beer
guilty of negligence. There was also ev
idence to sustain a finding that the de
PENDANT had wrongfully discharged III
plaintiff, and to sustain a verdict in ia
vor of the plaintiff for some amount.
The Judge thought that the sum @
$500 was clearly excessive and that tn
maximum to be awarded him should no
exceed the sum of s413 The plaintiff
counsel then asked permission to file
remittitur for the excess of $1S7, and t
this the defendant objects.
The Court was of the opinion that tn
objection was well founded, and tn
leave asked for was granted. He did not
however, think that the filing of the re
mittitur was enough to warrant granting
a new trial, and stated that if we Shout
permit a remittitur for s1S7 to result i
the overruling of the exceptions, tina
they would in effect be declaring tina
the jury found or should have foun
that the plaintiff did use due diligence
and that they awarded only s1S7 of tn
illegal items; in other words. they NIGH
be substituting our judgment for tina
Of the jury.
A new trial will be ordered unless tn
plaintiff RENTS the further sum of SSS
which, If he does so, will eliminate fror
the verdict all possible allowance of an
portion of the Illegal items of s275.