The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-06-15
LOPEZ DIVORCE CASE.


A. G. Correa yesterday fled an answer
to the charges made against him by Mrs.
Lena Lopez in her answer and cross-IibeI
filed the day previous in the matter of
libel for divorce brought by her husband,
J. NJ. Lopez. He declares all the charges
OF the Hbelee as to his neglect, careless
ness of her interests and his collision
with the libellant to be false and untrue,
referring the Court to the proceedings in
the matter of the guardianship of Merce-
des and Josephine Lopez. He also files
an affidavit in regard to his actions while
acting as attorney in said guardianship
matter, and reviews the details of the
case, giving a copy of the order of Geo.
a. Davis, then First Judge OF the First
Circuit Court, which provided that said
children were to be placed in a proper
boarding school, the same TO be approved
by both the father and the mother, and
the cost of suitable maintenance for said
children to be supplied by the father so
long as he should remain guardian OF
the children. Mr.. Correa alleges that this
arrangemelt was satisfactory TO all at
the time and that the mother agreed
to It.
WAHIAWA SUGAR co. ANSWERS
The defendant in the case of Joseph B.
Anterior ". Wahiawa Sugar Co, Ltd,
yesterday sled its answer to plaintiffs
bill, mak.-sS general and specific denial Of
the allegations therein. 1t admits that
the rent OF the premises was $500. and
also that the allegations as to the notice
of the attempt 10 enter and take pos
session OF r1e said premises by the
plaintiff ana rs TO the attempt OF sad
George GalbraiIh 10 assign TO the plain
tiff his interest under the lease to John
Emmeluth. AS TO plaintiffs allegation
that plaintiff put an agent in possession
of said lands and warned all persons
from trespassing thereon, taking open
and notorious possession thereof, the
defendant states that It has no knowl-
edge or remembrance or means of infor-
nation sufficient to found belief. and
neither admits nor denies the same but
leaves it 10 the proof Of plaintiff. 1t is
admitted that the leases and agreements
executed by George Galbraith and John
Emmeluth are not void on their face.
! For a separate answer defendant al
/ leges THAT the attempted assignment
4 by said George Galbraith to the plaintiff
herein OF all right, title and interest held
by the former under his lease with the
said John Emmeiuth was and is wholly
and absolutely void, in so far as il at
tempts TO assign to the plaintiff herein
the right 10 have, exercise, use, enjoy
and enforce all covenants, rights, conCl-
! tions, powers and reservations reserved
TO the said George Galbraith, or made
for his benefit IN each of said leases and
the agreements made between said Geo.
Galbraith and said John Emmeluth.' That
the attempt made by plaintiff TO take
possession Of the lands in question for the
alleged breach OF condition in non-pay-
ment of rent, was and is wholly and
absolutely void and that plaintiff acquir-
ed thereby no right, title or interest IN
or to any lands held by the said defend
ant under or by virtue OF the said lease
but that all rights Of the defendant IN
and to the lands in question are perfect
and unaffected in any way by any act
by the plaintiff, that the plaintiff has NJ
right Of possession or otherwise in or &C
the aforesaid lands. but Is holding them
if at all, as a trespasser and contrary tc
the rights of the defendant therein"
Further. upon Information and belief
the defendant alleges That the sait
!pIaintiff herein, Joseph B. Atherton, i:
NOT the real holder of ali or any of tbs
rights he may have under and by virtue
of the assignment from the said Georg'
iGalbraith TO himself OF the aforesaid