The Honolulu republican. [volume] (Honolulu, T.H.) 1900-1902, 1901-08-03
Tue PEARL ElRBaR paaeEEDIuss
CORPORATIONS FILE ANSWERS
CLAIM THE RIGHT or
TRIAL ey JURY.
Probate Matters Before Judge Gear
Eight Appeals From wsIeox-To
Test The thousand Acre Clause
Douglas Is Charged.

The Supreme Court handed down q
decision yesterday In the case OF VIII
liam BlaisdeIi vs.. L r Burns. appeal
ed from the Circuit Judge OF the First
Circuit. Chief Justice Frear and Judge
Perry concurring. Judge Galbraith dis
senting.
The syllabus OF the decision. written
By Judge Perry. is as follows:
Upon the evidence. an agreement
Of partnership is found to have been
entered into by and between the par.
ties as alleged in the bill The decree
appealed from, dismissing the bill on
the grounds Of lack OF proof of such
partnership. is reversed and the case
remanded for further proceedings.
Judge Perry. in writing the opinion
Of the court. says in part:
This Is suit in equity wherein
the main averments of the bill are:
That sometime during the month of
September, 1898. TO wit. on Septem
Der ]. 1898. the petitioner and respon-
dent by oral agreement entered into a
partnership under the terms of which
they became equal partners In the
business of soliciting life Insurance in
the Island OF Oahu.
That prayer is that respondent be re-
quired to submit to an accounting OF
said partnership matters and for such
other relief as may be proper. The
respondent denies the existence OF the
partnership as alleged Complainant
was to receive as compensation GER
tain portion of the commissions
There is an irreconcilable conflict
in the testimony of these two witness
es on this essential point We believe
the testimony of the complainant that
the agreement of partnership was en-
tered into by the parties The COM
plainant's statement is not without
correlation in the acts OF the parties
or from the testimony OF disinterested
witnesses"
The dissenting opinion Of Judge
Galbraith is. in part. as follows: II do |
not agree with the conclusion nor the |
reasons given by the court in the |
above opinion. n the issue was one of |
fact and the testimony irreconcilabIe.
as is stated. IL seems that the finding |
and conclusion of the Circuit Judge |
who heard the witnesses testify and |
observed their conduct while so doing
Is not given the weight and considers
ton to which II is entitled.
Il believe that the trial judge was
right when he found for the defendant
and dismissed the bill on the ground |
that the evidence was about equally
and that the plaintiff had not
sustained the burden of proof impos
I'd on him by law.
NO attempt was made TO impeach
my OF the witnesses and no reason
appears in the record for giving spe-
sial credence TO one over the other.
The purpose OF the alleged partner
'hip was to solicit and write life In
It is claimed that the rela-
ion was formed in September, 1898.
Ind terminated on December 10. fol-
owing. but that during part OF this
seriod. when the defendant was alb
'ent from Honolulu. the partnership
sas in a state OF suspended animation
Ind that on defendants return this
'ameless partnership again bloomed
nfo life.
II appears from the record that no
looks Of account were kept in behalf
I this alleged partnership. that II had
70 name. that II had no once or place
{ abode. that Il had no assets. not {
ven chair or q writing pad. that II | I
sd no capital except that carried I'M I
er the hat OF the respective members l
n seems TO me that the relation be !
seen the parties was too uncertain
nd ansuhstantial for the court to dig
ify il BY the name Of partnership. !
he plaintiffs appeal ought to be dis
Kissed and the decree Of the trial 7
'dge ssslrmed- Id
Q Test the Thousand Acre ciause. :
The following letter vas s3ar1r.es Il