Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1902-12-16
TO NON$U|T MAR(OK|
JUDGE ROBINSON HEARS
ARGUMENT FOR DEFENDANT
CLAIMED THAT MARCONI DID
NOT OBSERVE CONTRACT.
JUDGE GEAR ON
FEES.

The plaintiffs case was closed yes
terday in the suit of Marconis Wire
less Telegraph Company vs. F. J.
Cross, following which the defendant
mover for a nonsuit The motion was
argued by +. w. Milverton for the de-
PENDANT and the reply of T.. B. McClan-
ahan deferred till this morning. The
plaintiffs case consisted entirely OF the
reading of dispositions taken in Homo
lulu and London. together with the
correspondence leading UP to the pres
ent suit. II was shown during this pre-
Nsentation of evidence that at one time
Marconi intended to take possession of
the Hawaiian system and operate II
through the London company This
was shown by the following cable
gram introduced In evidence: Andrew
Gray: Our contract is not with the
Inter-Island Telegraph Company, but
with Cross. II Cross. after due notice
of completion. Is unable to meet his
engagements, they stay on; consult
lawyer as to our working commercial
lly." This cablegram was from Lon
don and was directed to Gray. the ex-
pert sent here to install the system.
The motion for nonsuit was based
upon the alleged non-performance OF
contract II was claimed that the con-
tract made by Cross was with the
Wireless Telegraph and Signal Com
pany, and not with Marconis Wireless
Telegraph Company. the plaintiff in
the present action. and that no trans
fer of the rights had been shown. 1t
was also argued that the contract with
Cross had afterward been assigned to
the Inter-Island Telegraph Company,
which assignment had been accepted by
the London corporation.
As to the failure to perform the con-
tract. II was contended by defendant
that the system had not been placed in
good working order, and that Marconi
had not furnished duplicate instru-
ments OF installation as specified under
the original contract. A further omis-
sion cited was the, cutting out of the
Island of Kauai. which should have
been connected with the wireless sys-
TEN. Only the islands OF Molokai, Ha-
wall. Oahu and Lanai were connected
by wireless. and this, II is alleged
constituted a breach of contract. II
was commended also, that Cross had
never agreed or consented to any
change OF the original plans. or ex-
ecuted waiver OF the contract
The suit Is for $500 alleged to be
due as the remaining half of the price
: agreed upon for the installation OF the
system. and the further sum OF s2,50C
as the first years royalty, which was
TO have been paid in advance. The
suit dates from 1899, but there has beer
no claim thus far for additional royal
ties. the defendant claiming to be op'
Grating under his own system.
There is no deposition from Maroon
In the trial, though numerous refer
ences are made to the inventor and hi
opinion regarding the failure of thu
local system. In several letters he |;
Il quoted as expressing the utmost con
m fidence In his invention. and sayini
that the system must be made I;
= work. One Of the experts who was sen
, here Is impressed with this In a lette
> marked confidential" and is given
promise of better things with the com
pany II he succeeds. The letter show
he was to receive e5 sterling per weel
for his work in Hawaii, together witt
his expenses
y Judge Gear, in approving seyera
y masters reports submitted to him yes
terday, took occasion to express hi
opinion as to what fees should be al
lowed generally. The matter came N
in the report made by +. IL. Loucks a
master to examine the accounts OF tn
Bishop Museum trustees. w. l.. Stan
- ley appeared on behalf OF the trustee
and suggested that a fee OF between
$50 and 800 would be ample in tn
matter. He stated that there was NJ
~ legal question involved, and that tn
work performed was merely clerical
Judge Gear stated that the account
were intricate and voluminous, an
had required considerable work on tn
part of the master. He said he ha
examined previous accounts OF tn
Ttshop Museum and found that Georg
Lucas had been allowed 5000 and /
an Z. Thompson 1915 for reporting on tn
ne ne same matter. Mr.. Stanley replied tina
" the fees were excessive In those In
:. stances, Judge Gear fixed the amour
- of the fee at 500, saying that In tn
u future he would be guided by allow
4 ances made in the past. A l.. g. Atkir
\ son, for reporting upon the II. A.
II Carter estate. was allowed fee of 81
I legal questions also being covered i
4 his report.