The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-07-24
PAH|A'S CASE
IS IN COURT
Arguments onWrit
of habeas Cor
pus Made.
JURISDICTION
IS QUESTIONED
The Kapiolani Case AIimony
Allowed KumaIae's
Wife.

The jurisdiction of Judge Gear was
questioned yesterday in the hearing
upon the writ of habeas corpus In the
case of Deputy Sheriff Frank Pahia,
court The writ was made rerurnable
to the same court that had caused it,
and Judge Gears Jurisdiction was
questioned in his own bailiwick. In the
course of the hearing some vigorous
language was used by Attorney George
Davis in his reference to both Pahia
and ]. NJ Poepoe which Mr. Davis
further emphasized by saying that no
language was strong enough to express
his views as to their behavior in the
purchase of the tract of land from
Puhipaka, minor, at that time the
ward of<Poepoe.
Attorney Robertson, for Pahia, ar
gued that the court lacked jurisdiction
either to order the conveyance, or TO
send Pahia to jail for contempt Tor
refusing to obey the order. He intro
duced in evidence the court record
bearing on the transactions in court
leading up to the committmenI Tor
contempt and argued that Pah1a was
not party to the guardianship pro-
Iceeding, and had simply been summon
ed as a witness. The attorney for Pa
hia quoted from many decisions to
prove that the court was without juris-
diction, stating that when the ward
marrieS or becomes. of age she passes
from the jurisdiction of the guardian,
and consequently of the court, except
ing as to the settlement of the guar
dianship. Continuing, he argued that
Pahia was not concerned in the case
except as a witness, and that the court
could secure jurisdiction over him only
by regular proceeding against him as
defendant. The question of the valid
ity of the deed, he maintained, was one
that should be decided at regular
hearing before court of equity, III
| order that Pahia might be given an
opportunity to prove his assertions.
Because of the summary action of the
court in sending him to Jail for con-
tempt, he claimed that he could not
prove his case.
Mr. Davis, in answering the argu-
ment quoted the married woman's act
| of 1885, which states that the guardian
shall continue in power even after
marriage, until the ward has reached
the age of twenty years. He charac-
terized the sale of her property as
fraudulent, and said that Jail was the
! proper place for a man, an officer OF
! the government, who would knowingly
/ buy a piece of property from a ward
and minor at one-third of its value
He argued that this case was within
| the Jurisdiction of the court; that IL
was a subject matter and that Pahla
had been brought into court on an or
/ der issued by this court, for an ex-
press purpose namely, to have him
produce the deed in court. Further, the
defendant disobeyed the order OF the
court, and was guilty of contempt, and
that the jurisdiction of the court ex-
tended over a guardianship until the
guardian was discharged and an ac-
counting made The defendant, ne
claimed, did not make sufficient allie
cations in his petition for writ OF ma
beas corpus to entitle him to the relleI
asked. The petition, he argued, was
mere legal conclusion, and not state
ment of fact.
Judge Gear took the matter under
6 dvisement and will render decision
in a few days. He stated that 1t was
simply a question of jurisdiction, ana
he wanted to be very careful in pass
! ing upon the case; if the court had no
: Jurisdiction. the commitment was null
and void.
THE KAPIOLANI CASE.
In the case of the Kapiolani Estate
{ VS. Kaneohe Ranch Company, yester-
lday. the plaintiffs concluded their tes-
timony shortly before noon. An at
temDt was made to introduce in evil
dence n old map said to have been
made bv A. Bishop in 1850. The tender
of the map was refused by the court,
on objection from the defendant, who
argued that it was not a government
lmap. Walter E. Wall surveyor gen
leraI, testified that the map was intro
duced among the official records WITH
out his knowledge, and that 1T was not
a government survey. The plalntliL
made several attempts to secure the
introduction of this map in other ways
but without success.
Immediately afterwards the pla1ntiff
announced that all evidence was m
when defendants attorneys asked Tor
a non-suit upon the eground that the
title was not proven. On reconvenlns
in the afternoon defendant asked TOT
a verdict claiming possession by virtue
tof a lease through Charles Harris. The
court refused to grant the notion ano
the defendant began the I1troductioi
of evidence to prove their title TO the
land in dispute. G.. Bolte, manager OF
the ranch was the principal witness
and testified that he had coHecteo
rents. made leases, etc.
KUMALAE'S WIFE GETS ALIMON4
At noon the court heard the applica-
ton for temporary alimony In the az
ivorce proceeding of Kumalae VS.. hu'
malae The plaintiff and DEFENDANT
though sitting within few feet o.
each other. were both apparently una