The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-08-01
THE AZB|L[
LEVI CASE
Defendant Tells
His Side of
1t.
THINKS HIMSELF
UNJUSTLY SCORED
The Plaintiff Did Not Want TO Sue
But Was Under Lycurgus'
Influence.

Editor Advertiser: I was NOT IN
court yesterday when Judge Gear rem
oered his decision in the case of Lev;
VS.. Azbill, but from the account given
me, your scoring" is more severe than
that of the judge.
According to your account there are
two or three misstatements bv the
judge. One is that the terms of the
sale had been concluded and the plain-
tiff made payment to bind the bar
gain; just at this time the plague came
on and for this and other reasons the
deal fell through"
The truth is the plague had been on
the house had been taken in charge by
the Board of Health and 1 was living
in Young street, where Mr.. Levi came
first to see about the purchase of the
leasehold. And the deal fell through
and the suit was brought by Mr. Levi
before his illness, which was believed
to be plague. In fact the case had
been set for trial on the very day his
shown fully that the plague had moth
ing to do with the failure of Mr. Levi
to take the hotel.
Another misstatement is that THE
part in the transaction, holding that the
| evidence showed him to have been in
the hotel during the time alleged, and
for which Levi received no pay"
AS stated above, l had moved to
Young street and was livingythere dur
| ing the whole time from the beginning
of the negotiations till the suit was
brought; nor did the evidence show to
the contrary. Besides. Mr.. Levi had a
man in charge of the hotel.
This case has been appealed to the
Supreme Court, and 1 do not wish to
try it's merits in the newspapers; but
| / do wish to protect myself against
false and erroneous statements which
are damaging. l will call attention
also to the fact that the testimony in
| the case had been heard some weeks
ago. and the matter went over to a
| later date, when the arguments could
| he heard. Yesterday was the last day
| of the term, and the judge is reported
| as having said he didn't want to try 1t
| all over again.. but wanted 1t hn1shed
lup. My attorney was not in court and
his associate did not know the particu-
liars of the case and was not prepared
| to argue it. So the court decided 1t
without hearing any arguments on
either side If the statements made by
| the Advertiser correctly report him, ms
| recollection of the facts in the case Is
greatly at fault
| The Judge is represented as saying
az am surprised to see man In the
| profession of Mr.. Azbill take advan-
tage of such a thing. Even IL ne
thought that Mr. Levi had no legal
right in the case, it seems to me that
| he would feel morally bound to return
the money to him"
: do not know that Judge Gear SAID
| this in these words. But replying 20
| this view of the case, / would ask why
l.ot consider Mr.. Lewis moral oollga-
ltion to carry out his part of the con-
tract? And why not take into account
THE substantial damage of title caused
by his refusal and his suit? Ana why
l. not consider the inconvenience ana cost
| to me of his failure, seeing that, AFTER
The sale. I had taken the Young street
house for further time and had maze
! all nv arrangements upon the suppo-
lsition that the deal would go through
However. I think the common sense
of business men, We're the facts 1uliy
known. would reverse the decision IN
this case.
I want to say word for Mr.. Levi
that he assured me the day after the