The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1903-11-21
CONTEST OVER
AN OLD WILL
or 1855 STILL At
ISSUE IN THE CIRCUIT
COURT

A motion has been filed by Hatch
and Ballou to dismiss the petition of
Junius kaae for revocation of the
probate of the will of Kealiiahonui,
which was admitted to probate in 1866.
The will has been sustained in several
contests, the last one being i'm 1890. The
motion to dismiss is on the ground Of
laches and want of prosecution. The
following affidavit was filed in support
of the motion:
Mrs. a. A. Haaleea, being duly
sworn, on oath deposes and says that
she is the principal party in interest in
opposing the above petition; that a
similar case brought by Kapiolani ct
AL and involving the identical issues
raised by the petition herein was tried
about the year 1866 i'm which the valid
ity of the will was sustained; that the
witnesses then called on behalf of at
fiant were Kamanawa, w. H. Pease,
Mrs. John Cummins, Mr.. John Cum
Minis and Charles Kanaina. that all Of
said witnesses are now dead with the
exception of Mr.. John Cummins, who
was called to testify only to his wife 5
handwriting; that atlantis principal
witness was Mrs. John Cummins, one
of the witnesses to the original VIII
of Kealiiahonui; that said Mrs. John
! Cummins died within three years last
passed. that the testimony for and
| against the petition herein, so far as
| this affiant knows, was almost eXclu-
/ sively oral in character and that, owing
to the long lapse of time herein ana
the death of the. witnesses who could
| testify for afflant, it would be inequit-
| able to now try the issues raised by
| the pAtition herein. Further, atiiant
sayeth naught."
Abigail Campbell Parker by her at
! torneys, Holmes & Stanley has appeal
| ed to the Supreme Court of the Ter
ritory from the decision of Judge Gear
appointing f. p. Dole guardian of Mu-
riel Campbell and Mary Beatrice camp
bell her minor children.
The following appeals have been sent
UP from the Honolulu District Court;
7. T. Wayson VS.. Deborah Pahau, de-
| PENDANTS appeal from judgment oil
$13716. -.
Houghton, Mihin & Co. VS.. DR.. T. Mi
tamura, defendants appeal from judg-
ment of $14SS6. The suit was on con-
ract with a book agent for the works
of Holmes, Whittier, Lowell, HaW-
thorne, Longfellow and Emerson. A
typewriter copy of the bill of ac-
count filed with the papers, mentions
whittier Lowell"
]. NJ. Vivas VS.. Cecil Brown, execu-
tor of the estate of William Phillips,
defendants appeal from Judgment OF
$40. 80. 1t was a claim for services in
issuing a marriage license to Phillips,
who went to the house of plaintiff to go
to his office for the license. Vivas told
him he would have to charge for extra
services. and afterward made demand
for $25 besides the 81 fee. Defendant
plea was that the claim was not pre-
scented within the limit of time required
by law. but this was overruled by
Judge Dickey.
The Orpheum Co., Ltd, VS.. j. Oswald
Lutted, defendants appeal from judg-
ment of $31S.25.
Wong Lup VS.. Wong Kwai, defend
ants appeal from judgment of $S3.7O on
account of wages due plaintiff as a taro
patch labOrer.
Castle & Wilmington for defendant
! filed a motion for new trial of Manoel
| b. Silveira VS.. l.. Ahlo, in which the
jury found verdict for plaintiff in
the sum of S4467.2 20. Among many
grounds offered, it is contended that
no verdict could be rendered against
defendant for an amount greater than
SS8