The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1905-04-29

1t was Greek meet Greek in Judge
Lindsay's court for an hour or so yes
terday afternoon and when the trial
in progress was continued at o'clock
till 10 O'Clock Monday morning the
glare of red and blue lights had not
faded away from the interior of the
fame of Justice
Judge Weaver on the witness stand
terrogator, Mr. McClanahan, belonged
of repudiating its spoken and written
promise
a nonsuit moved for by the defend
ant had been denied early in the aft
ernoon and the defendants case was
being put on, in the ejectment suit of
Leialoha K. Al and her trustee, w. r.
Castle, against Kapiolani Estate, Ltd.
D. L. wilmington, law partner Of w. r.
Castle and conducting the case for the
plaintiffs, was called by E. B. Nc
jections to questions about other cases
related to the one at bar, in which
Castle was a party and the witness of
counsel, were in some instances over
ruled and there were some warm in
terchanges and adroit fencing between
the two lawyers. But the real excite
ment of the day came when Withing-
ton resumed his attorneys seat and
Judge Philip l.. Weaver of the Land
Registration Court was called as
witness for the defendant.
Judge Weaver was associated with
w. r. Castle in practice, but not as
a partner, when certain cases allied
to the present one We're in the courts.
All of the pleadings in those cases
which Castle signed were also signed
by Weaver. In one case Weaver and
w H. Hoogs were co-defendants, who
We're both declared in default for nom
appearance.
Witness was pressed with questions
as to why he had taken default in one
case and why as attorney ne did not
plead in another case.
Judge Lindsay. with regard to the
latter case. at first sustained Withing-
tons objection that the question was
irrelevant, but on McClanahans urg-
ing that it bore on a crucial point in
versed.
swered.
McClanahan became sarcastic at the
answer, ridiculing the idea that an
attorney in a case did not know why
he failed to plead therein. Witness ex-
planned that he could not recall pre-
cisely what was in his mind at the
time.
He was asked about the case of Ka-
piolani Estate against p Peck &. Co,
one of the questions eliciting the re-
ply that the decision of the Supreme
Court in that case was not on the
merits.''
The next Interrogation produced a
headon collision.
Why was not the case of Kapiolanf
Estate VS.. P. Peck & Co. decided on
its merits?'' I
Because Mr.. MeClanahan repudiat-
ed stipulation by his own firm to
prevent decision on the merits of the
case
The answer came, calm and clear.
with unmistakable elaboration.
This becomes decidedly interesting
personally" McClanahan remarked
reports containing the decision,
Show me, Judge Weaver. in this
1ecision where I repudiated a stipuIa-
ion of my firm ?'' the defendants at
orney questioned
on 1t is not in the decision, it is
n the record" was the reply.
Then let us have the record" Me i
1lanahan called and the clerk handed
him a sheaf of papers.
Here" to Judge Weaver, find
where 1 repudiated a stipulation of my
lrm. He handed witness the papers.
Find it yourself Judge Weaver
urtly answered fiinging the package
pon the stenographer's table
Wilmington objected to the evidence
ought as immaterial. but withdrew
he objection with remark to the eff
ect that the defendant might have the