The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1902-10-07
GIVEN ONE HUNDRED
INSTEAD OF FIVE
THOUSAND
SUIT FOR FALSE IMPRISONMENT
WRITTEN EVIDENCE IN A
CASE is LOST-FISHING RIGHTS
BEING ARGUED BEFORE COURT

Judge Robinson this morning decided
the case of All Hing VS.. All On, suit
for $4,000 damages for false imprison-
ment, awarding 800 and costs to the
plaintiff. Some time ago a default was
entered against the defendant, with the
result that George A. Davis and the
judge had a lively discussion, and this
morning Davis filed a motion to reopen
the default and an appeal from the
judgement of the court. Davis claims
that the court denied him a jury trial
when he had right to such trial, and
excepts to the rulings of the court on
other legal grounds.
A copy of the stenographers note
book used by Miss Francis Washbuln,
formerly court reporter of the Fourth
circuit court has been sent to Henry
Smith, to be forwarded to Miss WASH
burn, in Tennessee, in order that she
may make a new transcript of the evil
dence in the case of the Hawaiian Trust
and Investment Company VS.. Annie A.
Marion ct al. The evidence has been
lost, and it is expected that the steno-
grapher will be able to read her notes
and write it out again. The case was
heard in September 1901
William Mutch and Fred Harrison
have filed their final accounts as exc
cutors of the will of Robert Gustav
IGaDe, ueCedSeQ, anu asked LOT d us
tributiOn of the estate.
The fisheries rights cases were ar
gued all this morning in the Supreme
court, A. G.. NJ. Robertson, who appears
for the government, taking up most of
the time. The briefs submitted will be
very numerous as most of the law firms
/ in the city are interested and many at
torneys want to file briefs. j. A. Ma
! goon, w. L. Stanley, A. Lewis and H.
! a. Bigelow have already been given
permission to file. briefs, in support OF
| the contentious of Hatch and Silliman,
who represents the parties interested
in the test cases now before the court.
In his argument this morning Rob-
ertson dwelt largely on the form of the
land patents on which fishery rights
claims are based, and discussed titles
dating back to the days of the old land
! commission awards. He claimed that
! the records showed the fishing rights
titles by the plaintiffs were not vested
rights at ALL f. NJ. Hatch began the
answer to Robertson. Hatch also went
into old-time titles, discussing the ma.
ture of the rights held by chiefs who
enjoyed the possession of lands under
| the Kings, before the land commission
awards. He said they were vested
rights, even though the monarch might
at any time take them away from the
chiefs. Hatch contended that the
titles to the private fishing ground:
were intended by Congress to be pro
tected. Congress regarded them a!
vested rights he said, "and to declare
now that they are no rights at all II
to endeavorng to defeat the very OBJ
ject of the provision which Congress
made regarding them"
Magoon claimed in his argumen
that the territorial government ough
to be willing to pay for the fishing
rights, and that this was what Con
gress contemplated He said that tn
title to the rights was very clear an,
that he was surprised that the govern
ment opposed the suits brought to es
tablish the rights.