The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1903-02-11
THE PRINCE
MUST PAY
Jury Found Retainer
Is Entitled to
Wages.

tainer Of the late Queen Kapiolani, for
his services as such The Jury in the
case Of Bright VS.. Kawananakoa re-
turned verdict shortly before six
i o'clock last evening finding for the
plaintiff in the sum Of $780, The suit
was for $3.50 claimed to be due as
wages. and the defense was that Bright
simply acted for the Queen and was
paid in the use of land, just as were
other retainers of Kapiolani. The jury
evidently did not put much faith in the
old Hawaiian custom, as even the
plaintiffs attorneys did not expect a
1 victory
/ MARCONI CASE TO-DAY.
The case of Marconfs wireless Tele-
graph Co. VS.. F. ]. Cross will be heard
! today. This is a suit brought by Mar
conf against Cross for the sale of the
! right to use the wireless telegraph sys-
| tenn in Hawaii, and also for royalty.
J. w. Cathcart and F. w. Milverton
appear for Cross, and E. B. McCIana-
han for plaintiff
THE SILVA CASE.
The Silva divorce case is again COM |
ing up before Judge Robinson this
morning on a motion to reduce the |
alimony. At present Silva is required |
to pay sixty dollars a month to his
wife and alleges that he is not able to
do so. His property is already in the
hands of Waterhouse & Co., in an ef-
fort to secure the payment of alimony.
COURT NOTES.
Judge De Bolt granted divorce yes
terday in the case of Hamilton Nc
Cubbin VS.. Mary ]. McCubbin on the
ground of desertion.
In the case of Hattie Gallagher VS..
Ben Gallagher, libel for divorce. de- {
PENDANT was ordered to pay court costs \
and an attorneys fee of $40. Z
E. B. Friel has asked that F. w.
be appointed administrator
OF the estate of Bella D. F'riel. She
eft property worth 1921. The deceased ;,
was one of the victims of the F'riel fire :.
asst October.
]. F. Brown reported as commission
IT in the suit of w. A. Hall VS.. Annie -
Hall that a division Of the real property ;,
an be made. He divided the estate ~
nto two lots, one worth $31O96 and the N
ther $31, O46, which he believes to be r.
n equitable division. K
Sarah Swinton has asked leave to in II
ervene in the case of Mary c. AIdrich &c
t al VS. Priscilla E. Hassinger ct al. 70
he claims to be entitled to the prop or
rty of Douglas K. Brown, one of the
omplaihants by deed of conveyance.
THE LOw-HIND CASE.
Robert Hind yesterday filed a motion &c
,r a supplementary decree in. his suit st
gainst Eben Low for dissolution of we
artnership asking that the property ne
. placed in the hands of a receiver for MI
,ttlement In the trial of the case du
Ind was sustained and also on appeal De
the Supreme Court and now he is o"
ying to settle up the property. In his VIII
tition he says: gu
Petitioner alleges that the relations no
tween plaintiff and defendant are VA
ry much strained; that defendant is ma
tterly opposed to a dissolution Of the WI
partnership and is Bitterly opposed
a sale Of the partnership property:
at plaintiff and defendant differ as
the method of winding up said part
=. - -,,ro+ tod
Institutes partnership property, plain
specifically alleging on information M
belief that defendant claims the
~. 900 bv job
- ,,,,4,,,eo,, Che
intiff and defendant and which has
N used as partnership property; aud
Their that plaintiff claims that GER -,
u smart III ''ie Sou
referred to in the pleadings, is the
perry of said co-partnership, and =
1900 s,o,,1a account for Tao
same.
further alleges that he is toda
= excluded and for several years kaa
has been excluded from particiDa- Tt
, in the partnership affairs and from wa s.
troll and direction of the same; that +ba
eNo ,,at+ers is still maintained fully
defendant; that plaintiff differs by
n defendant in the management of was
partnership aHars' anu 'ii1 that
10 De MI ~ , oraree ..for that plain put
and defendant have lost confidence
ach other and for that defendant IS
self now resisting every necessary TIL
proper step TO el0se up Inc trial
be co-partnership." :,