The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-10-16
KEEP OFF
THE STREET
JapaneseHaCknen
Have Right of
Way.

| japanese hackmen have the right Of
way on the streets of Honolulu, ac-
cording to the decision handed down
yesterday by Judge Gear in the case
of A. w. Mclean VS.. Nichigishi, suit
for damages for injuries received by
plaintiff by being run down by de-
PENDANT
The trial of the case was begun yes
terday at noon, before the jury impair
elled on Monday The evidence of the
plaintiff showed only that the woman
had been run down by defendant; that
she was injured, and that she was
| crossing Merchant street at the tin.e.
The hackman drove up from behind
and she was thrown under the horses
heels. No evidence showing negligence
on the part of the defendant was intro
| duced excepting perhaps the statement
! of one witness that the Jap was
laughing and joking with companion
at the time of the accident, and not
watching his horse. The plaintiff in
| the case testified that she was cross
| ing Merchant street, and did not look
] around to see if wagon was ap-
preaching.
| AT the close of the testimony for
plaintiff, Attorney Davis moved for a
non-suit, on the ground that no negli-
| gence had been shown on the part of
the defendant, and there was no evil
dence that he had not exercised due
and proper care. The motion was ar
gued at length. Magoon, for the plain
tiff, contending that he was not COM
PEELED to prove it specifically. but that
the accident itself showed there had
been carelessneSS on the drivers part.
DO you mean to say" he asked the
court, who had intimated what the
decision would be, that 1, or anyone
crossing the street, or standing in the
street, with my back to an approach
ing wagon, could not recover damages
If | was run down, and the driver had
failed to give a warning signal?"
That's. about right" replied the Court
1T is your duty to keep a lookout for
passing wagons, when crossing the
street, and YOU are certainly responsible
if you stand in the way of an approach
ing team
We'll, that's new kind of law to me. .
responded Magoon, the idea of a man
not being allowed to stand in the street.
The Court heard further arguments AMI
then allowed the motion for non-suit
holding that negligence on the part OF
the defendant had not been proven. He
supplemented his decision by notifying
the jurymen not to take Magoon's state
ment in earnest, or stand in the st.eet
without keeping a sharp lookout for
passing teams, warning them that they
would not recover damages in sjich an
event.
The jurors evidently did not take the
advice very kindly, for after leaving TIE
court room they expressed themselves as
not understanding the Courts ruling in
taking the case from the jury. and frcI,l
their discussion it was easy to see that
had the case been allowed to 20 to the
jury, verdict would have been return. ed
for the plaintiff in a i5osr5 sum.
TWO JUSTICES HEAR APPEAL.
Justices 'Gllbraith and Perry sat alone
On the Supreme Court bench yesterday
to hear arguments on appeal in the case
of Choy Lock See VS. Royal Insurance
Company A member of the bar had
been called ty Judge Galbraith to sit
with the Supreme Court, but he was
found to be disqualified, and the inter
ested attorneys agreed to present the
case to the two justices. 4 very peculiar
condition of affairs may possibly arise
from this fact for in the event that
there is dissenting opinion, the Court
would be evenly divided. and there could
be no decision. In such an event it is |
agreed that the matter Shall be submit
ted to Chief Justice Frear. who will then |
give the deciding opinion
Inc case heard yesterday was an ap- |
peal on part of the defendant The suit |
Is one OF those growing out of the plague |
IRE, III which Circuit Court jury found |
for plaintiff. The Supreme Court had de- !
cided a similar case in favor of defend |
ants. but this particular case was allow |
ed to go to jury. upon the grount-
mat the ire had not ben caused by the
Board OF Health but was due to natural |
causes, namely, the high wind which had
caused Its spread to the destroyed prol
erty.
The grounds upon which the appeal |
was made and argued yesterday. was the
refusal of the lower court to sustain |
defendant Motion for a non-suit This
had been asked on the ground that the
buildings destroyed were on leased |
land. that It had been unoccupied long
previous to tie fire, and that the wind |
was of extraordinary and of unusual
and could not be called a nat
ural cause. According to the terms of
Lhe policy the insurance company was
from paying for propertv de-
9trcyed oy the act of civil authorities.
Robertson closed his argument !
20 the Court Yesterday afternoon. and he
VIII be followed by Judge Silliman for
he plaintiff this morning.
Yesterday morning the concluding ar
'ument in the case of the Gulstan f. Ro
'ert trustee vs.. John X. Sumner. was
heard.
KAPIOLANI ESTATE CASE.
! he entire morning was occupied by
I"dSe Gear IN hearing evidence in the 4
aSe of kapiolani Estate vs. Peck & co.
re coEr1 room was OVERLOOKING with
"7pS and documents pertaining to the
use, ana the opening statements were
PRESENTED WITH the use of a blackboard
no chalk for purposes of illustration
,ut two Witnesses were examined during
ne morning. Following which the case
= As put over until this morning at $50
clock
MUST PAY NOTE TWICE.
Judge Gear rendered decision in fav-