The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1904-12-09

| ate the cattle, hence the wording of
the notice was exactly in conformity
with the terms of the mortgage. The
] mortgage was general in its terms and
| the sale likewise.
| Mr.. wilmington warmly contended
that the price obtained was ridiculous
! " small and represented it to be inn
proper that the sale should have been
made to an officer of the court, mean
ing the receiver, who was the only
person having definite information of
the property that was sold.
Mr.. Cooper objected to any appear
ance for w. R. Castle, as he had no
interest in the property sold. his
mortgage was of other land. There
was no surplus in question, the debt
being 1000 and the realization $13,-
OOe. in round figures.
Judge Robinson was about to make
an order confirming the sale, when Mr..
wilmington asked if that was TIC be
done without hearing. In answer to
the court he said he had evidence TO
put in if permitted.
The hearing was therefore extended,
and Mr.. Cooper, being called by Mr..
wilmington, testified regarding the
circumstances of the sale.
Mr. Monsarrat, who in the meantime
had formally protested against con-
firmation for the purpose of saving
his own rights. was ne !. called. His
statement that Mr.. Buchnoltz wrote to
him saying the property was worth
$50. 900 was struck out, as not respon-
sive to the question of value at sale,
when he had explained that the letter
was written some years ago. However.
he testified his belief that the value
of the property at the time Of sale was
at least double what it sold for
At 5:25 Mr.. wilmington begged for
, continuance of the hearing. saying he
had been on a jury case all day, be-
sides attending to several, other mat
ters.
Perhaps the court is ready to rule
Mr.. Cooper suggested, but, after some
conversation, the hearing was contin-
ued until p. m. Monday.
Law OF ENLIGHTENMENT.
An important point was before the
| Supreme Court yesterday in the case
of Edward Vivian Richardson, charg-
ed with embezzlement as clerk of the
Honolulu Water Works. E. C. Peters
represented the Territory, and A. G. NJ.
Robertson the defendant.
Mr.. Robertson commended, producing
J authorities from different States, that
Richardson was not liable to indict-
ment under the statute referred to
| therein, because there was nc, law that
made the clerk of the Water Works
/ bureau an Official charged with. and
responsible for, the custody of public
money. A distinction was drawn be-
| tween the general statute of embezzle-
ment and the provision in the Audit
/ Act under which Treasurer w. Fl.
Wright was indicted which declared
certain officials to be public account
ants and responsible for moneys COM
ing into their hands as such. Counsel
argued that Richardson's Office was not
that of a public accountant.
Mr.. Peters in reply laid stress on
the provision of the embezzlement
statute, making one an embezzler who
converted money to his own use which
had been received by him in a public
capacity either through appointment
or regulation"
SEA FRONTAGE DISPUTED
| One of the cases recently argued and
submitted before the Supreme Court is
that of Territory of Hawaii VS.. L. B.
Kerr. The defendant appeals from an
| injunction against building a retain
ing wall into tho, sea at Waikiki, taking
in new land from the domain of the
] Pacific Ocean. r. l.. Weaver repre-.
scented the Territory and S. H. Derby
the defendant. -p-
FUNERAL wRECKING SUIT.
Return of summons for the January
/ term has been made in suit brought
by Francis Jose against Honolulu Rap
i id Transit and Land Co., claiming $4,000
| damages on account of the wrecking'
of the hearse containing the dead body
of the plaintiffs wife, from being
struck by an electric car on King
street on the 4th day of September,
| 1904. It is alleged that the ear was
negligently and at an unlawful rate
of spead being driven at the time and
place of the collision and that no bell,
gong or alarm was sounded before the
car struck the hearse. The hearse was
| broken and the coffin demolished, it
| is represented with consequences
whereby the plaintiff was greatly
| nauseated and sickened and sustained
and suffered a great nervous shock,
| and sustained and suffered great men
| tai anguish and pain" A. S. Hum
phreys is attorney for plaintiff.
OLD DIVORCE CASE.
The divorce case of Mary Naukana
Duncan VS.. Adam L. Duncan, in which
an order of temporary alirnony of IS
q week was made on March 81, 1903.
/ came on again before Judge De Bolt
yesterday. c. w. Ashford appeared for
the libellant and the libellee in person.
The court, after hearing kWidence,
granted the divorce on the ground of
non-support and ordered the nbellee to
pay the libellant's counsel a fee of $50
and also to pay the costs of court. 1t
was further ordered that the owner
ship and custody of the household fur
niture and effects be confirmed to the
libellant.