The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1904-02-09
Jury TRIALS
YESTERDAY
Two Decisions by
Judge De Bolt
Filed.
Law of Partnership and
Verdict of a Jury
Discussed.
Campbell Estate People Demur to
KaiIua's CompIaint-WilI
of Mrs. Tschudi. |

Wong Lup VS.. Wong Kwai, assump-
sit. was tried before Judge De Bolt
yesterday F. M. Brooks for plaintiff,
C. w. Ashford for defendant. A YER
dict for the plaintiff for s72.45 was re-
turned by the following jury: Charles
r. Collins, S. K. Aki, Starr Kapu, John
Kidwell, Charles Kapule, D. ]. Styne,
w. H. McInerny, James Armstrong, Fl.
Cook, Edmund Norrie, Joseph Andra-
de, and c. H. 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
q 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 K. Aki, Chas. Ka-
pule, VIM H. McInerny, Jas. Arm
strong, D. ]. styne, Chas. r. 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 Le-
andre Oliveira, ejectment, was con-
tinued for the term by consent.
Wilmerding-Loewe Co. vs. Lawrence
n. Dee was continued for the term
pending settlement.
Capital Building Co. VS.. Henry
Waterhouse & 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, zee Eat 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 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
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- |
tention 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- |
0ng, 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, !
"the liability of Y All Min has not |
been affected by reason of the disso- |
luton of the old firm, or by reason of |
the agreement between himself and |
Yong Gnu 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 |
Chu Keong, the action as to him being
dismissed without prejudice. There
was no dispute regarding the amount
of the claim, which was for the sum of
s517.40, together with interest on diff
ferent sums stated for certain periods
Ashford for plaintiff, Castle & With
ington for defendants.
VERDICT SUSTAINED.
Judge De Bolt rendered a written de-
cision on defendants motion for a new
trial of Theresa Owana Wilcox VS.. Q.
H Berrey. The motion was denied.
1t related particularly to the words of
the verdict, viz: I'VE the jury in the
above entitled cause find for the plain
tiff and against the defendant in the
sum of s15960 damages. But we do
not think defendant had any malicious
intent The concluding sentence was !
held by defendants counsel to vitiate |
the verdict, because not responsive to |
the issue and because the damages !
we're claimed on the basis of malicious |