The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1902-08-01
KEKfIKI
GETS LAND
Verdict for Him
In Ejectment
Suit.
FAIRS LOOKING
FOR REPUTATION
Alleged Murderer Wants Dsposi-
lions From Among Califor.
mia Acquaintance.

tU0
; The jury in the ejectment suit G
; John Kakeiki VS.. Maleilona returned
verdict in favor of plaintiff at s:3
, O'Clock last evening for the possession
; of the land at Koolaupoko. The jur!
|. was instructed shortly after fou
, o'clock, and at six returned to the jur!
) room with a report that there was ar
, even division. Shortly after dinner
, however an agreement was reported
; and the verdict was in favor of Kake-
Tiki,
Magoon made another attempt yes
. terday morning to secure the intro
; duction OF the former testimony of a
deceased witness He went on the
stand and attempted to give his recol-
lection OF the witness evidence from
his notes, and Mr.. Brown again OBJ
jected. The evidence was finally ruled
out the court holding that the evil
dence of the witness having been in
| Hawaiian. while Magoon's notes were
in English they could not be accepted
as the exact words. Further there was
a Hawaiian interpreter who had trans
/ lated the testimony and it could come
only through him. The court further
held that Magoon's notes would likely
be colored as he was an attorney in
the case, even though he wished to be
| impartial.
| The evidence OF the defendant was
brief, there being little to introduce, as
Brown was unable to secure the pres
ence OF his witnesses. The case went
| to the jury at about four o'clock.
In the former trial of the case which
| was in 1899 there was judgment for
defendant, there being a majority YER
dict of nine to three. This verdict was
afterwards set aside by the Supreme
Court.
TO PROVE. CHARACTER
The character of George Faris, bet
ter known as Kentucky Bill" who is
under indictment for murder in the first
degree, is to be proven by witnesses
at Salinas, Cal, where the defendant
formerly resided,
Motion for the issuance of commits
sion to take testimony in the case will
be presented before Judge Humphreys
this morning by C. F. Reynolds and E.
murderer.
y The names OF William Patton, NJ. j. |
Smith, w. J. Nesoitt. Charles France, |
J. H. Brown, III. f. lyman and Henry |
Riech, all OF Salinas are presented as |
witnesses for the defense. The inter- |
long the defendant resided in and about |
said Salinas, and the reputation in the
community in which he lived as to
peace and quietude'
The affidavit further recites that
Faris has resided in the Territory for
only short time, and his character
cannot be proved by witnesses residing
within the jurisdiction of the court.
1t is also alleged that without the
testimony of these witnesses il is not
safe for defendant to proceed to trial.
CIRCUIT COURT NOTES.
\ general denial has been filed by
Elise Neumann in the case of s. n.
Damon eft al. VS.. w. H Pain ct al.
Judge Robinson heard the case Of
Henry Smith VS.. Mary A. S. Rose and
5. B. Dole as governor, yesterday, and
took the matter under advisement. The
defendant placed Supt. Boyd on the
stand and he testified that the disput
I'd exchange of land was made by his
j. A. McCandless. The
Of the questions put to Boyd
we're ruled out by the court. The mat
ter was taken under advisement.
Judge Gear has issued venires for
grand and petit jurors TO appear in
court next Monday morning for the
August term. Gear will preside in
place, who owing TO pres
sure OF work incident 10 his early re-
-irement, has asked TO be excused
An answer was fled yesterday in the
asst OF E. G. Rowe VS.. Stanley Stephen
son, suit for accounting and dissolu-
ion OF partnership. Defendant denies
hat any partnership ever existed, or
hat he made contracts or collected
monies for any firm. He denies being
n possession of any funds belonging
o the co-partnership s
The verdict in the case of Chez Kit
IS. Lee Lung was for plaintiff in the ,
um OF $500 instead of for defendant.
Yesterday afternoon Judge Robinson
'egan the trial of the case of Lam All
lee ct al. VS.. An Soong ct al. This is
n action for damages for diverting wa
er from plaintiffs lands. 1t was once
ecided in favor of plaintiffs by Judge
but he refused to allow testi-
nony to show dana ges for loss of wa
err granting however an Injunction
the further overt acts of de-
apdauts The S,Jnreu7e Court reversed
he decision in that particular and re-
handed the case to the Circuit Court
n order that damages might be es-
mated. The trial viii occupy several
avs