The Honolulu republican. [volume] (Honolulu, T.H.) 1900-1902, 1901-05-22
cHR|sTlEI FINALLY
wins his LAWSUIT
Circuit Court Decree
Upheld Although
Modified.
MRS. LuHIHG OBTAINS 4 VERDICT
FLAW IN BUILDING CONTRACT
WITH CHINESE FIRM
sPoILs CLAIM.
sehweitzer & Co.'S Suit Against C. J.
Fishei Under Advisement-sylva-
no de Nobresa Tells How He Pro-
vided for His pisafected Wife.

The case of Christley VS.. Magoon
has been decided adversely TO the de-
PENDANT by the Supreme Court. 1t
was on appeal from a decision of
Judge Perry while on the Circuit
Court bench, so that Judge Edings
sat in his place with Chief Justice
Frear and Justice Galbraith. The
Chief Justice is author of the opinion,
which is unanimous.
Judge Perry's decision is very ma
terially modified in favor of defendant.
Nothing in the decision reflects upon
the character of the defendant. The
case is decided upon grounds of public
policy. The court says: In our opin-
ion the decree appealed from, claiming
the relief prayed for. should be affirm
ed on the ground that, assuming that
the defendants intended to act fairly
and justly toward plaintiff and that
they did So" yet, under the circum-
stances, the Court decides the defend
ant to be trustee for Christley. The
Court says: I'VE may even assume
that the defendants thought they were
being magnanimous to the plaintiff,
at least to the extent of thinking that
the new arrangement would be better
for him, considering all his troubles,
than the old one" The case is decid-
ed upon the presumption of undue in
fiuence, arising from the existence of
fiduciary or confidential relationship,
such as attorney and client, or even
that of principal and agent.
Hatch & Silliman and ]. T. De Bolt
MI Kinnau pc1lOI1 g. Me-
Clanahan for defendant.
Schweitzer & Co. VS.. Chas. ]. Fishel
was heard without jury by, Judge
Edings. By consent of counsel the
declaration was amended. F. w. Han
key for the plaintiff; Magoon &
Thompson for the defendant. After
argument the case was taken under
advisement 1t is an action on an
undertaking given by defendant in
writing to pay for merchandise of not
exceeding $3.50 in value to be furnish
ed to Mrs. G. A. Turner of Hilo. Plain
tiffs allege they furnished goods &C
cordingly to the value of S744.03 and
that defendant has paid only 500 on
account of the bill.
Lum Sung, Lo Pau, Pong Chong,
as zee Sing Tai Co., VS.. Marion M
Luning came before Judge Edings
and the following rurr was irnpaneled:
E. c. Holstein, Solomon D. koki, Wal
ter NJ. Pomroy. Solomon Peck, Thorn
as ]. Quinn, James L. Aholo, Walter
A. Hardy. VIM. NJ. Cunningham, Vim
cent Fernandez. Albert e Lloyd, VIM.
B. Rice and VIM. H McInerny. Plain
tiffs were represented by Magoon &
Thompson, the defendant by F. w.
Hankey. II was an action to recover
s557.50 balance on building contract,
including some small items of furnish
ing. for a two-story house in Emma
street. When the case came to trial
it transpired that, besides the defend
ants signature, the building contract
was signed only by zee Sing Tai.
without saying that it was on behalf
of the company Mr.. Hankey moved
for directions from the Court to the
Jury TO find a verdict for the defend
ant This was granted I'D verdict
was returned according -
John K. Prendergas has filed his
first account as admin. trator of the
estate of Kahalewai Pearson with a
petition for allowance thereof and his
discharge. He received $3.50 and paid
s220.25. leaving balance of s13975.
Sylvano de Nobrega. defendant to
the divorce suit of Libana de Nobrega.
answering an amended complaint
SAYS: THAT on the 18th day of April
1899. defendant conveyed by deed in
fee simple to Joe de Nobrega, the son
of plaintiff and defendant. a certain
house and lot in Nuuanu Valley. in
Honolulu. Island of Oahu. of the value
of three thousand five hundred dollars
with the object. purpose and under.
standing that the same would imme-
diately be conveyed by the said Joe de
Nobrega. in fee simple by deed. to
the plaintiff herein. for her sole use,
benefit and maintenance; that the said
premises were so conveyed to the
said Libana de Nobrega, the plainfifi
herein. on the said 18th day of April.
and she has ever since been in posses
sion of the same and had the full use
and benefit thereof" Further. he
claims that from September %. 1899,
10 January %. 1901. he paid plaintiff
six dollars a week for her support, but
ever since the latter date she has fail.
ed 10 demand and receive this weekly
payment although he was at all times
ready and willing TO make il. L NJ.