The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1904-09-16

INSURANCE
CASES DROP
One Discontinued
and NOnsuit in
Another.
From rhursday.s AdvertIserl

yesterday morning. and another one
ended In nonsult after occupying the
whole day before Judge Robinson. II
was when the discontlnuance was an
nounced In court, and no other jury
case ready for trial, that Judge DE Bolt
let his Jurors go until the first week In
October as stated below.
THE CASE THAT FAILED.
Kwong Lee Yuen & Co.'S suit against
Manchester Fire Assurance Company
came on for trial before Judge Robin
son. S. NJ. Ballou and Mr.. Anderson
appeared for plaintiff, and A. G. NJ
Robertson for defendant. The follow
ing jury was empaneled: Sam. NJ. Ka-
makau, Norman Watkins, II. C. Carter,
Louis c. King, j. j. sullivan, Percy
Lishman, II. p. Benson, Arthur l..
Soule, Arthur tombstone, VIM. F.
Erving, Patrick Ryan, Hiram kaaha.
The suit was on an insurance policy
for $3.50, on two Chinese dwellings on
the northerly side of Maunakea street,
between Hotel and King streets, which
We're burned in the Chinatown fire of
January 20, 1900.
Mr.. Robertson, in cross-examining
member of the plaintiff firm, asked him
if he had put in claim for the property
before the Fire Claims Commission and
received an award from that tribunal.
Mr.. Ballou objected that such claim
was immaterial citing Judge Dole's
decision in the Yee Wo Chan case where
it held that an award of the Fire
Claims Commission was not compen-
sation but a gratuity from the Terri
tory and the United States Congress.
tn, -a,Ixr hxyN Nv Unh H.
,ertson that the two cases did not trot
in the same class" as in the Yee Wo
Chan case the insurance was collected
before the claim was entered with the
Commission, whereas in the present
case the plaintiffs received an award
for their loss and We're trying to get
the insurance besides. 1t would be
fraud on the insurance company, coun-
sci argued, if it was made to pay
loss that had already been made good
from another source.
fudge Robinson had the Federal court
decision produced and finally ruled out
the defendants question.
Mr.. Ballou having rested the plain
tiffs case Mr.. Robertson moved for a
nonsuit on tn. ground that there was
no evidence of the value of the build
ings at the time they We're destroyed.
AT this Mr.. Ballou moved for leave to
reopen the case this morning on the
ground of surprise" as he did not
anticipate a ruling that his evidence
was insufficient
Judge Robinson stated that he had
ruled uniformly on that point while the
evidence for the plaintiff was being
taken. Therefore he denied leave to re-
open the case and granted the motion
for nonsuit.
Mr.. Ballou noted an exception to the
courts ruling, especially on the
ground of abuse of discretion"
Judge Robinson then dismissed the
jury and excused it's members from fur
Their attendance in court until Friday
morning.
Geo. w. Smith, member of the Board
of Health; Dr. ]. S. B. Pratt, its ex-
ecutive officer, and Andrew Brown,
member of the Board of Fire Commits
sioners, when the fire was started I'M
der orders of the Board of Health on
that memorable day, We're on waiting
orders as witnesses in the case all day.
LESSON TO LAWYERS.
Judge De Bolt gave the attorneys in
civil cases allotted to him what they
seemed to need most-time in which to
get ready for trial. Yesterday was the
second day on which cases We're set for
trial, but with none of the attorneys
who had answered ready at the call
ing of the calendar prepared to go on
with anything. Accordingly the court
excused the jurors from further at
tendance until Tuesday, October A. or
fifteen court days later.
THE HUSBANDS STORY.
Kojiro Nakamura answers the libel
for divorce of his wife, Tsune Naka-
mura, in the first place saying he was
sued enormously by the name of Ko-
jima Nakamura. He denies her accu-
sations of ill-treatment and alleges her
repeated desertion of him-once at Ma
poopoo, then at Honolulu and again at
Lahaina. on the aforementioned occa-
sion, according to his story, they We're
on their way to Hawaii when they
agreed to stop over at Lahaina to see
some friends. This was on August 10
last, and the respondent thus tells of
what happened:
THAT on or about the 12th day of
August said petitioner without cause or
provocation and without the consent or
knowledge of your respondent again left
and deserted him, taking with her $50
in cash and certain valuable papers, all
property of your respondent; that your
respondent Immediately instituted
search for petitioner and thereafter, to
wit, on the 10Th day of August, found
petitioner at Honolulu aforesaid"
Kojro denies the affluent circum-
stances attributed TO him in his wifes
libel. lie says he Is growing coffee In
kona upon Ave acres of leased land,
one-half OF the area being under Guilt
walton but without expectation of n
crop for at least two years. Conclud-
ing, he says:
THAT your afiiant II wholly without
available money and your afiiant alleges
that he has spent more than $3.50 purHu-
Ing said petitioner over the Islands. tis5
Of which he was forced 20 borrow from
friends. That the entire assets Of your