The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1903-08-28
JAPANESE TRADING THRIFT

binson according to their respective
! summons.
JAPANESE TRADING THRIFT.
somewhat valuable estate of a dead
Japanese merchant has Just been ad-
ministered, the final account being filed
In court. 1t is that of Iwakichi Kato
and the administrators are Kihu Ka-
to and Yaichi Mitsuda. The receipts
are S16,220.47 and payments 81, O73. So.
leaving balance of s5146S4 OF the
receipts $S426.O2 was the net amount of
a fire claim award after the expenses
thereon OF $1Oi703 had been paid. The
store has been carried on and its stock
In trade increased and though there
Is indebtedness of $1,000 for new goods
there are accounts due of $1,000 1t is
remarked In the statement that the
widow as sole legatee is responsible for
the new obligations. The whole exhi-
bit is an instance of Japanese thrift in
trade.
ATTORNEY AND CLIENT.
Holmes e Stanley have filed a brief
for defendant on demurrer IN the case
or Antonio Joaquin da Estrella VS..
Charles M. lie Blond. IT is an action
possessing much general interest, be-
ing one brought against an attorney
at law for negligence in failing to per-
feet an appeal from the Judgment of
the District Court of South Hilo, Ha-
wall, rendered against de Estrella.
The case is before the Circuit Court
Of the First Circuit upon a demurrer
to the jurisdiction, on the ground that
oil
limits of the Fourth Judicial Circuit.
Under Act 56 of the laws OF 1898. in
force when the action was begun, &C
tons for tort are triable only in the
Circuit in which the alleged cause of
action arises.
AS counsel for plaintiff at the hear
ing admitted that the court had no
jurisdiction over the action If it was
one of tort, the whole force of the ar
gument FOR the defendant in this brief
is directed at showing that 1t is an
action'of tort. Comparisons are set up
as follows and number of cases are
cited in support of the contention that
the neglect of a clients interest by his
attorney is 4 case of wrong, whether
a contract does or does not exist
Suppose in the absence OF express
contract an injury results to the guest
of an innkeeper through the latter's
omission to keep the hall lighted, can
anyone say that the innkeeper Is not
liable to an action III tort? Or that
the presence of an express contract
would take away the liability in tort?
And the same Is true where an in
jury results to a passenger through the |
negligence and omission of n coiHmon !
carrier. TIE fact that the relationship !
of innkeepcr and guest or of carrier |
and passenger arises from contract |
cannot purge the misfeasance or nom
feasance of its character of tort. Ard |
SO in the case of attorney and eli ant
The contract gives rise to the relation
ship, but that once established the neg
ligent action or omission 20 act. Ill
though a breach OF cot trHc,, Is also u
tort and the basis OF an a;tion ey
ielicto.''
1t is cOntcnded that nowhere H. the
ill of complaint IS there an allaga Ion
If breach of contract. and it Is as SeG
Why the plaintiff lays SO much stress
ipon carelessness and negligence IL
his is intended as an action for brea,h
II contract. Woull not on all cation
f the failure to Appel have been sufn-
lent.