The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1902-01-07
MANY CASES
PRESENTED
SupremeCourtRas
a Very Busy
Day.

The Supreme Court did land Office
business yesterday, hearing seven cases
during the day, and giving oral decis-
ions in three of the motions submitted
to it. -..
In the case of Territory vs. Wing
Tung ct al the Supreme Court reversed
the District Magistrate at Hilo upon
the ground that his decision was con-
:rary to the constitution. This was a
liquor case. the Hilo police having
seized wines, liquor. beer, etc, belong
ing to several Chinese in that city. AT
the time of the hearing the attorney
for the defendant demurred to the in
formation on the ground that the seiz-
ure was illegal and unwarranted, and
violated the fourth and fifth amend
ments to the constitution of the Unit
ed States, relating to unreasonable
search and seizure Of private proper
ty. So
The District Magistrate paid no at
tent;on to the demurrer and continued
the hearing of evidence. declaring the
LIQUOR to have been rightfully confie-
Gated. The appeal was made direct to
the Supreme Court. Thomas Fitch APP
peared for the defendant appellants
and Attorney General Dole represent
ed the Territory. The argument was
very brief. the plea of the defendant
being practically admitted. The court
delivered an oral decision sustaining
the demurrer of defendant and revers-
ing the district magistrate at Hilo. He
was ordered to take such further pro-
ceedings as are consistent with the
courts order.
KAMALO CASE FIRST,
At the afternoon session the plain
tiffs in the case of Frank II. Hitchcock
vs. Judge Humphreys, application for
mandamus in the Kamalo case asked
that the case be given precedence over
the trial calendar. The motion was re-
sisted by defendants. An affidavit was
presented by J. Alfred Magoon setting
out the Importance of an immediate
hearing and alleging that large inter-
ests are at stake; that a delay meant
the loss of their entire property to the
plaintiffs; that plaintiffs owe large
sums of money. and the creditors have
delayed pressing their claims in antic-
ipation of a speedy settlement OF the
present suit; that n large part of the
land held by the Kamalo Sugar Co. is
leased and as the rent has not been
paid for long time, the owners
threaten to take the property and can
eel the said lease. In conclusion, Mr.
Magoon says In his affidavit that it is
impossible for the Kamalo Sugar co.
to proceed with Its operations as long
as this suit remains undecided and
property of large value is rendered
useless and is rapidly deteriorating."
Mr.. Magoon contended in his argu-
ment that the suit was of the utmost
Importance, and was an extraordinary
proceeding entitled to a speedy hearing
the same as a habeas corpus case The
motion was opposed by Mr.. McClan-
ahan and Mr.. Robertson. After n short
conference with the associate justices,
Chief Justice Frear announced that
the motion would be granted and the
case was set down for Thursday to
follow that of c. A. Brown VS.. ]. D..
Spreckels ct al.
MOTION DENIED.
In the matter Of the estate of Il. w.
Holt the Supreme Court denied mo-
ton to dismiss the appeal made by Mr..
Fitch. The motion was on the ground
that the records failed to show that
III appeal Hdu UeeI ptllcCteu' iIO llhi'
script OF evidence having ben made.
This was the appeal from the order
of Judge Gear In refusing to allow the
payment to the trustees of money
loaned to the minor heirs in excess of
their share of the estate.
TAX APPEALS PRESENTED.
The following appeals from the tax
appeal court were argued and submit
ted yesterday: Julia and Becky Hunt
VS.. Tax Assessor; Estate of James
Campbell; John Puulua VS.. Tax As
SCISSOR and Mary A. Graeme VS.. Tax
Assessor.
hearing today: Richard T. Richard VS..
Keahonui Richard from fourth circuit;
NJ. Moorhead VS.. Tax Assessor; C. X.
g. Rookie VS.. Tax Assessor and NJ. S.
Grinbaum & Co. Ltd. VS.. Tax Assessor.
The case of Kapiolani VS.. Lizzie X.
Pauahi Is set for tomorrow.
Several cases in which George Davis
is attorney went over to the March
term because of his absence but in the
case of Fred Wundeberg VS.. Geo.
Markham. in which J. A. Magoon APP
peared for plaintiff, he stated that the
matter was important and should not
be delayed because of the absence of
an attorney
BELIEVE PRINCE IS OUT.