The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1904-12-28
BISHOP NOT
CORPORATION
Supreme Court Makes
Ruling of Importance
to Catholic Church.

In the Supreme Court yesterday
morning, Chief Justice Frear handed
down a decision, his colleagues con-
curing, in the case of Bishop Libert
VS.. Male Paahao, action in ejectment
| for less than one acre of Ka1ihi land.
The appeal comes from the Circuit
Court which, after striking out much
of the plaintiffs evidence. ordered a
non-suit, overrnling exceptions. The
decision, in its essential points, fol-
! lows:
When a plaintiff has rested. and
much evidence essential to his case
has been struck out or excluded. but
other essential evidence has not been
offered, non-suit may be ordered and
the striking out or exclusion of the
essential evidence is harmless.
The Bishop of the Roman Catholic
Church in Hawaii is not sole eorpor-
alton and cannot take by succession
from his predecessor in Office. To sus-
| tain ejectment, he must show a privity
of title or estate between himself and
his predecessor, if he claims under his
predecessor, whether he claims by pa.
per title of adverse possession.
This is an action of election for So
100 of an acre of land situated at Ka-
nhi, Oahu, covered by L. c. A. 10,4sS,
r. P. S546 to Nahinu, part of lot con-
| tanning 1 63-100 acres, originally en-
closed by one stone wall and used, &C
cording to plaintiffs claim, for forty
years or so as site for a Catholic
church and burying ground. The
, action was begun by the Right Rever-
end Gulstan F. Ropert. Bishop of Pa
napolis. but before the trial his death
was suggested and the present plain
tiff, his successor in Office, was sub
stituted In his place.
1t does not appear that the Bishop Of
the Roman Catholic church in Hawaii
has ever been created a corporation or
even recognized as such by statute or
judicial decision. Chapter 81 of the
laws of 1886. in which a quitclaim of
q piece of land that had been used by
the Catholic church since 1889, was
made and authorized to be made to
the predecessor of Bishop Gulstan,
seems to have been framed on the
supposition that the bishop was not
corporation Section 1 quitclaimed the
land to Hermann Kockemann, Bishop
of Olba and Vicar Apostolic Of the Ha-
waiian Islands in trust for
the Catholic Mission OF the Hawaiian
Islands"
HALL WINS HIS CASE.
In the case of the Washington Mer-
camille Company, Ltd, VS.. VIM. A.
Hall, the Supreme court yesterday |
morning gave a decision per curiam
sustaining the exceptions of defendants
from the ruling of the First Circuit |
Court. In this case the District Magis-
trate gave plaintiff Judgment in his
action of assumpsit on a promissory |
note. Defendant appealed, waving |
jury, and the case stood on the calen- /,
dar of Jan. 1904 term, No 1853. An order !
was made December, 1908, assigning .
all odd-numbered civil cases to the
first judge. The order also said that |
all cases in which neither party an
swered ready would be peremptorily
continued for the term or dismissed, |
also that the calendar would be called
from time to time, counsel to be noti- |
fed of this through the press or other |
wise. BY an order of the court made +!
Dec. 81, 1903, all odd-numbered cases
of the jury waived calendar were call |
ed at a. m, Jan. 4, 1904. As no coun- |
sci on either side appeared the appeal
was dismissed. On Jan. s the defend |
ant made a motion to reinstate the |
case and vacate the order dismissing |
1T, on the ground that the Circuit court |
had not been opened at the time the |
order was made, that the third Judge |
whc-rH1d been assigned presiding judge !
al the January term did not open term {
until 10 a. m. Jan. 4, the order having !
been made at a. M. before the term |
was legally open for business, that the |
absence of the defendants attorney |
was a mistake on his part, and that |
the order to dismiss was an abuse of
discretion
The syllabus says as follows: Appar-
emily both parties were ignorant of |
or inexperienced the order made by
the first judge Dec. 81 that the jury
waived calendar would be called at
a. m. Jan. without deciding the
validity of any term acts of the first
judge done prior to 10 a. m. Jan 4, at
which hour the term was formally
opened, we think that this is a case in
which it would be proper that the or
der of dismissal be rescinded and the
cause remanded to the Circuit Court
Of the First Circuit for trial. or such
other proceedings as may be appro-
pirate. and it is so ordered The ex-
ceptions are sustained
|