The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-05-29

Plantation Company is still on trial be-
fore Judge Edings All day yesterday
was occupied taking evidence for the
plaintiff, and the case will probably not
be closed for two or three days, Kinney,
Balleu & McClanahan and Magoon &
Thompson are attorneys for the plain
tiff, and Attorneys Hankey and Cecil
Brown represent the defendant
COURT NOTES.
Formal entry was yesterday made OF
the Judgment for $500 damages and costs
in favor Of the plaintiff in the suit of
Nellie a. Cook VS.. HOLSTER Drug Com
pany fer $1,000 damages. The costs are
taxed at $3.50.
Defendant has, by its attorneys, An
drews. Peters & Andrade. fled an ex-
ception to the denial by the Court of its
motion for a new Trial heretofore made.
Defendant is allowed, by stipulation,
until June Is TO file its bill of exceptions
f. W Hankey yesterday filed his
withdrawal of appearance as attorney
for defendant in the case of Ed. Hof-
schlaeger & Co VS. s. c. Akina ct al
dt II GOttSEulttl 10 ~ iiiS
defendants.
Defendant in the case of Schweitzer &
Co. VS.. c. j. Fishel has filed his bill of
exceptions and moved the Court for a
new trial on the ground that the verdict
rendered by the Court on May 2 1901,
without the Intervention of a jury was
contrary TO the law and the evidence
and the weight of evidence. Judge I'd
ings overruled the motion without ar
gument
The plaintiff in the case of Manuel de
Quadros VS.. w F. F'rear ct al, by his
attorneys, r. ]. Russell and J. T. De
Bolt, has filed an amended complaint.
Plaintiff complains that defendants have
INSTRUCTED a road in the rear of his
premises in Kobu, Honolulu, by erect
ing a building across said road so that
plaintiff could not pass with vehicles or
on foot on said road, which fact, plain
tiff alleges, has worked to his damage in
the sum of $1,000. Robertson & Wilder
are attorneys for defendants.
The motion of Robertson & Wilder,
attorneys for T. W. Hebron for a new
trial of the case of T. W. Hebron
against C. l. Helm. has been granted.
o. Charles Lewis yesterday afternoon
rendered his resignation bailiff of the
First Circuit Court. His resignation
was accepted by Judge Humphreys, TO
take effect at once.
The defendant in the case of N. Gus
mao Silva VS.. ]. A. Magoon ct al, yes
terday fled an answer TO plaintiffs COM
plant, making general denial of plain
tif's allegations and demurring on the
ground of insufficiency of facts to con-
stitute a cause of action.
PROBATE.
| The annual account of W o. Smith as
guardian of the minor children OF Geo.
e. Richardson, deceased, has been filed,
tor of $2,TT, with balancing expenditures.
ADOPTION OF INFANT.
Petition has been filed by Maria Ma
kanani, showing that she Is the mother
| of one Kelia Makia, a female infant
which has heen in the care and custody
| of Mrs Haaipo --akia and John Makai
since the day Ct its birth; that said Mrs.
Haafpo Makia and john Makai have re-
peatedly requested the petitioner TO give
them tia said chad for adoption, and
that they are well able to educate, clothe
maintain and care for said child and
that they are persons of good moral
character; 5hat on May q petitioner and
said Mrs. fsa;ipo Makia and John Maka
entered into a agreement of adoption
a copy of vssaich is filed. and wherein
I
said child by said parties
| Petitioner prays that such agreement
of adoption be legaIized and the sigma
lures of the adopting parents are also
affixed to the petition.
DIVORCE. MATTER.
| In the matter of Virginia NJ. Lancaster
VS. Millie Lancaster, notice has beer
given by Cecil 4,rown, attorney for Nil
lie Lancaster, that on Saturday, June 1
at 10 O'Clock a. M, he will move the
Court for an order appointing Mile
Lancaster guardian of the person anC
property of the minor child, Iren,
Blanche, and for an order of Court an
nulling the former order which com
mands Mile Lancaster to pay to Vir
ginia NJ Lancaster 81 per week, the mo
ton to be based on an affidavit which
lis fled with the notice.
i The affidavit is by the divorced hus
band and sets out that he has paid reg
iuIarly the weekly sum ordered to b'
maid by him to the plaintiff for the main
itenance. care and education of said child
that the order of Court that said chile
The brought TO the home of the defendan
by mother one day of each week, 81
that defendant might enjoy the compan.
of said child has been entirely disregard
ed by plaintiff. and that he has no
been permltteo 10 see ASi S-iiSe -
granting OF the divorce; that plaintiff
INSTEAD of spending the 81 per week up
an said child has been spending it supoi
? herself neglecting the needs of the child
that tte child is in need of clothes and
Ibeing neglected and uncared for: tina
since that granting of said divorce, tn
factions of plaintiff have been imprope
land of such nature as to show her a
limit custodian of the child. Therefor
defendant prays for an order awardin
him the custody of the child and releas
ing him from the payment Of the sal
sum per week.
Grand Jury