The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1905-02-10
DAMAGE CASE TRIAL.


w. o. Barnhart's suit for $4,000 dam
ages against Honolulu Rapid Transit
e Land Co, for malicious prosecution,
was on trial before Judge De Bolt and
a jury yesterday. S. F. ChiIlingworth,
A. S. Humphreys and c. A. Galbraith
appeared for plaintiff, and D. l. With
ington for defendant.
Plaintiff is a drayman on his own
account. He was moving safe out
of store on Fort street opposite the
Club Stables. and the operation delay
ed an outbound Nuuanu avenue car,
for the passing of which Beretania
and a Nuuanu car, inbound, were wait
ing on the Progress block switch. Su-
perintendent Pratt of the defendant
company was coming into town on the
Nuuanu car and, seeing the blockade
farther on, left the car and went to
where plaintiff was at work with two
or three men. The safe had just been
placed on the dray and the skids were
being loaded on. Pratt asked Barnhart
to move his team so as to let the car
pass, when Barnhart replied. In
minute, old man After a little Pratt
repeated the request and received the
reply Just as soon as I am ready
whereon he stepped around and, TAX
ing one of the horses by the bride, led
the team across the street. thus clear
ing the track for the car to pass. Barn
hart ran after Pratt, seized him from
behind and pushed him. Pratt's face
came in contact with a telephone pole,
causing a confusion over the right eye
and a lump on the jaw. Pratt showed
a police badge on his coat lapel and
his prisoner to the corner of Fort and
Hotel streets and gave him in charge
of A. McDuffie. a police officer. who
went to the patrol box and rang for
the patrol wagon. Barnhart objected
to being carried in the BLACK Maria
without avail. and was driven therein
to the police station. Pratt walked to
the station and entered a charge Of
assault and battery against Barnhart.
who was released on depositing $25 bail
After several continuances the case was
tried, with the result that Barnhart
was discharged. At the trial W. L.
Whitney, then connected with the law
firm of Castle & Wilmington, appeared
for the prosecution and. in answer TO
Mr.. Humphreys, admitted that Castle
& Wilmington We're retained by the |
Rapid Transit Co.
Foregoing is a statement of facts not
at present trial Where stories |
of witnesses on opposite sides diverged
were as to the readiness of the draiyload
to have the team moved and as to the |
Rapid Transit cos connection with the |
of Barnhart. Attorney !
on the stand for the de- |
Tense when the court adjourned for the |
day. testified that Castle & Wi-hing-
ton were constantly retained by the |
Rapid Transit Co, but specially paid |
by it for outside work At the time of |
the trouble Manager BaIIentyne advts- |
ed Pratt to drop the prosecution and |
told the witness that it was no affair |
Of the Rapid Transit TO. Pratt met |
himself and Whitney at their office. |
and witness told him he had good |
caSe of assault and that Ballentyue !
had no right to stop him prosecuting it.
IN the day of the trial ne told Whit
1ey TO go to the police court with |
8arnhart. In impaneIjng the jury the
plaintiff challenged r IveTs. :. J. Allen
,astre and c. NJ. Cooke, Jr., and the