The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1904-07-12

tiff on defendants bond on contract in
building the, Masonic Temple In the
First Circuit Court, secondary evidence
regarding the bond-which had been
lost-was excluded Plaintiff took an
exception, which the Supreme Court
sustains, ordering a new trial. The
opinion is by Justice Hatch.
! j. A. Magoon and ]. Lightfoot for
plaintiff; w T. Rawlins for defend
ant.
CATTLE STEALING CASE.
Territory of Hawaii VS.. Jacintho A
de Nobriga, Matthias Baptista and Joao
| Cordeiro. Defendants excepted to YER
dict finding them guilty of larceny IN
the second degree in stealing steer
belonging to the estate of VIM. H
Richard, deceased. Opinion by Justice
HartweIl overruling the exceptions.
, The Supreme Court denied motion
that the defendants De discharged on
the ground that the record did not sno"
that the defendants had been sentenc-
ed" For the rest certain questions to
witnesses are ruled not prejudic1al err
ror.
Lorrin Andrews, Attorney General,
and z. A. Douthitt for the Territory;
E. NJ Watson for the defendants.
ACTIONS FOR DEBT.
zee Chin ct al. partners under the
name of Wo Sing Co., VS.. Y. Atoy ct
al. under the name of Kwong Chong
Wal Co. Exceptions from First Circuit
Cso,,r+ 5irao+od xy4ar1iot
for full amount claimed, s3143.S3, bal
ance due for goods sold and delivered,
also for $1,000, amount of promissory
note. Opinion by Chief Justice Frear,
overruling exceptions. The grounds of
decision relate to evidence and to the
stamping of note, for the latter it being
held:
"A note originally unstamped may be
stamped afterward in the manner pre-
scribed by statute, and, if it is not
stamped and was given in payment for
goods sold and delivered, and was not
paid at maturity, a recovery may be
had on the original consideration.
Thayer & Hemenway for plaintiffs;
Castle & Wilmington and VIM. L.
Whitney for defendants.
AUTHORITY OF PARTNERS.
zee Chin ct al, partners under the
name of Wo Sing Co, VS.. .Chu Lof ct
al, partners under the name of Kwong
Mau Wal Co. The case is similar to
that of the same plaintiffs against
Kwong Chong Wal Co, above, except
that the amount of the balance for
goods, after crediting the $1,000 note,
is $1556.64. Opinion by the Chief JUS
tice, overruling the defendants excep- |
tions. The court holds:
I'm an action on a note signed in a |
partnership name by one partner, it |
need not be alleged that the partner
had authority to sign or that the part |
nership was a trading partnership. An |
that the defendant partners |
made and delivered the note, ETC.. is |
Counsel same as in preceding case.
MATERIALMAN'S LIEN.
s. Reist. Exceptions of plaintiff from |
First Circuit Court to directed verdict |
for defendant in an action of assumpsit |
for s434.S1, balance alleged due for ma
teT1diS 1uTLISdeu ny pidiiIlliL " oC1Ciio-
ant to be used in moving, repairing and |
certain buildings. Opin- |
ion by Chief Justice Frear, overruling |
the exceptions. The court holds:
In assumpsit there is no implied prom |
Use or liability by owner to sub-con
tractor for materials supplied to a con- |
tractor.
A contract is necessary to a material |
mans lien.
There was variance, between the |
pleading and the evidence which justi- |
fed a directed verdict.
Kinney, McClanahan & Cooper for /
plaintiff; c. W. Ashford for defendant. |
ATTORNEY FEE SUSTAINED.
J. Alfred Magoon, plaintiff in error, |
VS.. Thomas Fitch, defendant in error. |
Writ of error to reverse a decision by |
Judge Robinson in the matter of the |
estate of Kalua Kapukini, a spend |
thrift, allowing Thomas Fitch counsel |
fees to the amount of $500 for profess |
sional services in proceedings to obtain |
a termination of guardianship Opin- |
ion by Justice Hatch, dismissing the |
writ of error. The court holds:
"A Circuit Judge sitting in probate |
has jurisdiction to allow counsel fees |
to counsel representing a ward in an
unsuccessful attempt to obtain revo-
cation of an order of guardianship.
1.-The amount of such allowance is not
renewable on writ of error, except in
case of abuse of discretion by the pro-
bate judge
j. A. Magoon and j. Lightfoot for
plaintiff in error; defendant in error in
person.
PUBLIC WORKS