The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1904-07-22

/ Christian preceded Sea on the stand,
| for the conclusion of his examination
from the previous day. Answering
| questions put by the court, the hus-
band acknowledged he was not in love
/ with Eliza before marriage-at' least
not until he knew they were going to
be married. They had never kissed one
! another before the ceremony in the
church.
| Mrs Christian is heir to property
valued, on conservative estimate, at
| 500, 600 upon the death of her father,
the elder John D. Holt.
wAILUKU WATER RIGHTS.
Attorneys Kinney and Ballou for the
| defendant held the attention of the
! Supreme Court yesterday in the water
rights case of Hawaiian Commercial &
Sugar Co. VS.. Wailuku Sugar Co. Mr..
| Kinney insisted strongly on the de-
PENDANTS water rights appurtenant to
certain old taro lands bought by it and
now planted in sugar cane. Apart from
any konohiki water rights defendant
was entitled at least to the same pro-
portion of water as the taro planters
would enjoy if they had continued in
cultivation of the land. This share was
vested in the taro lands from time i'm
| memorial almost. 1t made no differ
ence Mr.. Kinney argued, that the sur
plus water was nowadays impounded
in reservoirs at night. That was mere
ly a change to modern methods. Thirty
or forty years ago lights were to be
seen dancing amidst the cane at night,
when in the absence of reservoirs the
surplus water had to be utilized for
irrigation at the hours when it came
down.
Mr.. Ballou quoted the sworn testi-
mony of w. o. Smith, on a former oc-
casion, to show that the plaintiff had
taken the position that konohiki rights
had nothing to do with the controv-
ersy.
w. O. Smith. w. r. Castle and D. L.
Wilmington, of counsel for the plain
tiff, were in close attendance on the
hearing all day
CHARGE AGAINST ACHI.
In the foreclosure suit of H, Hack
field & Co., Ltd, VS.. w. C. Achi, Ka-
piolani Estate, Ltd, w. r. Castle and
J. M. Monsarrat, the plaintiff moves
that a receiver be appointed to take
charge of the live stock covered by
the mortgage H A. Isenberg, vice
president of the plaintiff corporation,
in an affidavit says that he is familiar
with the property covered by the mort
gage; that part of said property con-
sists of valuable live stock including
neat cattle, horses, donkeys, pigs, etc;
that said live stock is capable of being
easily removed. Proceeding, he says:
hot ant ies INF cd tN1-
lieves that the defendant w. c.. Achi,
knowing that the mortgage herein is
about to be foreclosed, has already re-
moved and disposed of considerable
amount of said live stock without in
any way accounting to the plaintiff
therefor. and aff1ant is further inform
ed and believes that unless said live
stock is taken out of the control of
the aforesaid w. G. Achi pending the
hearing of the above entitled cause he
will remove and dispose of all of the
live stock upon the aforesaid mort
gage property; that the said acts of
the said defendant w. c. Achi have
already impaired and will continue to
impair the mortgage security of the
plaintiff herein, and have caused and
will cause the plaintiff irreparable in
jury, and that plaintiffs rights can
only be adequately protected by the
! appointment of a receiver to take
charge of the aforesaid live stock dur
ing the tendency Of the above entitled
cause
Judge Robinson has set the hearing
of the motion for g receiver at $50 this
/ morning.
AN ORDER REVOKED.
Judge De Bolt granted the motion of
libellee in the divorce case of Lono
Keanini VS.. John Keanini to vacate
the order of July Is requiring the libel
lee to deposit in court $40 for costs
and $50 as attorneys fee for j. Alfred
Magoon. The ground of motion pre-
sented by T. McCants Stewart was
that the non-appearance of the Hbellee
on the hearing, when the order was
made, was caused by a failure of his
attorney to see the order of the court
fixing time for the hearing, also that
the libellee had a substantial defense
against the Rorder. Judge De Bolt.
however, granted the motion on the
different ground that the court is in
doubt as to whether or not evidence
should have been taken at the time for
attorneys fees and costs.''
COURT NOTES.
Judge Gear has under consideration
two bills On account of the jury that
figured in the mistrial of the HiIo
waterfront case last term. One is from
the Union Grill, charging S14 for din
ner to twelve jurors and two bailiffs
and the other from the Hawaiian Ho-
tel, charging $3.50 for nights Iode-
ing and breakfast to the iury