The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1904-02-09

JURY TRIALS
YESTERDAY
Two Decisions by
Judge De Bolt
Filed.


dict for the plaintiff for s72.45 was re-
turned by the following jury: Charles
r. Collins. S. X. Aki, Starr Kapu, John
Kidwell, Charles Kapule, d. j. Styne
w. II. McInerny, James Armstrong, II.
Cook, Edmund Norrie, Joseph Andra-
de, and c. II. Clapp. Exceptions of
defendant were noted and notice of
motion for a new trial given.
Enoch Johnson VS.. w. C. Achi. cove
nant, next came on for trial. Holmes
& Stanley appeared for plaintiff, and
the defendant for himself The fol-
lowing jury was empaneled: Edmund
Norrie, John Andrews, John Kidwell,
j. c. Axtell, Sam X. Aki, Chas Ka-
pule, VIM. II. McInerny, Jas. Arm
strong, d. ]. Styne, Chas. +. Collins,
Henry Cook and C. j. Ludwigsen. The
trial is still on.
The Orpheum Co., Ltd, VS.. j. Oswald
Lutted. assumpsit, was continued for
the term by Judge De Bolt.
Geo. A. Davis VS.. VIM. A. Hall, as
sumpsit, was continued for the term
pending settlement.
Kapiolani Estate, Ltd, VS.. Jos. L.
andre Oliveira, ejectment, was con-
tinued for the term by consent.
Wilmerdng-Loewe Co. VS. Lawrence
II. Dee was continued for the term
pending settlement. :.
Capital Building Co. VS.. Henry
Waterhouse e Co. begins it's seventh
day on trial before Judge Gear this
morning.
PARTNERSHIP LAW EXPOUNDED.
Judge De Bolt. in giving Judgment
for plaintiff in the suit of Wong Tung
VS.. Y. All Min, Y. Atoy, Chum Poi Fat
Hee Ten, Yee Fat and Yong Chu Ke-
ong, gave some law bearing on the
elusive partnership schemes for which
the Chinese are peculiar. Defendants
constituted the firm of Kwong Chong
Wal Co.. of which plaintiff was a cred
itor. y. All Min sold out his interest
in the firm to Yong Chu Keong, who
by written agreement undertook to as
sumo Y. All Minis share of the part
nership liabilities. The other MEM
bers of the old firm consented to this
arrangement and received Yong Chu
keong as a copartner in place of Y.
All Min, the new copartnership contin-
uing the same business under the old
firm name. Plaintiff had no business
dealings with the new copartnership,
nor did he in any way signify his in
tention to release Y. All Min or the
old firm, or to accept Yong Chu Keong
or the new firm as his debtors. He,
however, made Yong Chu Keong a
defendant. Plaintiff contended for
judgment against all the defendants.
The court finds that the plaintiff has
not by either allegation or proof shown
any legal claim or cause of action
against Yong Chu Keong. the new CO.
partner. 1t decides against the con-
tenton that plaintiff, by suing the
members of the new firm, elected to
avail himself of the agreement be-
tween Y. All Min and Yong Chu Ke-
ong, thus releasing Y. All Min There |
might be some show of reason for that |
contention had the plaintiff omitted
Y. All Min as a defendant.
I'm my opinion" Judge De Bolt says,
"ti liability of Y. All Min has not |
be. affected by reason of the disso-
luti.n of the old firm, or by reason of
the agreement between himself and
Yong Chu Keong. 1t Is also my opin-
ion that Yong Chu Keong did not as
sumo any legal liability toward plain
tiff by reason Of becoming a member
of the new firm, or by reason Of the
said agreement"
Many authorities are quoted for
these views and judgment Is given
against all the defendants except Yong
Thu Keong, the action as to him being
dismissed without prejudice. There
was no dispute regarding the amount
IF the claim, which was for the sum of
S5l740, together with interest on diff
'erent sums stated for certain periods.
Ashford for plaintiff, Castle & With
ngton for defendants.
VERDICT SUSTAINED.
Judge De Bolt rendered written de-
'ision on defendants motion for a new
rial of Theresa Owana Wilcox VS.. O.
i. Berrey. The motion was denied
/ related particularly to the words of
he verdict viz: 1--WE the jury In the
Ibove entitled cause find for the plain
iff and against the defendant in the
um of sl596O damages. But we do
lot think defendant had any malicious
ntent." The concluding sentence was I
leld by defendants counsel TO vitiate
he verdict because not responsive to
he issue and because the damages
we're claimed on the basis of malicious
intent.
The court says: THE general find
ng for the plaintiff against the de-
endant legally disposed of the only
ssue submitted to the jury and left
lothing further for them to consider
n to decide" Again: 1.-THE first part
# the verdict Is a determination,
conclusion. The latter part deter I