The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1905-10-25

90 .. Co. .. 80 e. e. -.
docks, and then refattened them when
better weather came.
In regard to the number of cattle
| to be kept in a paddock, the witness
testified that dry weather in the Mana
| paddocks affected the food while in
! the WAIKIKI paddocks it affected the
water. His plan was to stock the pad
docks as full as possible in good wealth.
er and, when drought came, to with
draw the cattle and sell them off or
distribute them among other paddocks.
He thought, however, that If he had
had water in WAIKIKI paddock as Car
ter has he would have changed his
| plan and carried only the number Of
cattle that could be supported the year
around.
On redirect examination the witness
said that the fat cattle he had noticed
from the Parker ranch had only been
since the receiver was appointed, but
that a great part Of them must have
been bred in Carriers time. The wealth
er had been very dry while he was on
the ranch; he remembered only five
good seasons out of the thirteen years
he had been in charge.
The witness was not disposed to
modify his statement as to the necessi-
ty of having a man IN Honolulu, as
he considered it absolutely necessary
for the Parker ranch. Magoon asked
him as to the proper compensation for
such man, but Kinney objected on
the ground that the witness had not
qualified as an expert in regard to the
business of fixing prices, watching the
market and other matters outside the
routine of cattle shipments, and the
court sustained the objection. Jarrett
thought that such a man might devote
part of his time to another ranch. AS
between his present recollection of his
ability to fill all orders for fat cattle
and the letters that Kinney had read,
he thought the letters We're correct.
Henry Hall, butcher at Honokaa
was the next witness called, and was
testifying to the poor condition of cat
tie furnished him by the ranch, when
the court adjourned for the day.
COURT NOTES.
In the case of Ethel Barr VS.. The
Rapid Transit Company, a stipulation
was filed yesterday by Thompson &
Clemens for plaintiff, and Castle &
Wilmington, for defendant that the
deposition of Miss Leontine Hartnagle
may be taken at $50 this morning be-
fore George Lucas, and that the depo
sition will be received in evidence.
Wong Lung yesterday petitioned
Judge De Bolt that a writ of habeas
corpus issue in his behalf to release
him from Oahu Prison, to which he
was recently sentenced, that he may
appear in court, to show cause why
he should be released. Wong Lung
claims that he was sentenced by Judge
Whitney of the police court, who was
without jurisdiction to try his case.
Judge De Bolt issued an order to the |
High Sheriff to bring the body of Wong
Lung into his court on Wednesday |
morning, October %. Wong Lung was |
charged in police court with having |
'fraudulently taken, accepted and kept |
stolen goods, to wit, lady's gold watch /
valued at $780,
Petition for foreclosure of mortgage
was filed yesterday, in the case of the |
trustees of the Lunalilo Estate VS.. (
Sarah e. Duncan. In the amended |
petition, the name of G. Schuman, as
one of the defendants, is stricken out |
A decision without argument was
given by the Supreme Court yesterday |
in the matter of a motion for
a rehearing of the case of Moses Me-
leula VS.. the Pioneer Mill Co. in which
ne matter is being framed for an APP
peal to the U. S. Supreme Court The
court declined to hear argument. al
-hough all the attorneys were ready
o proceed The court stated that they
we're unanimous in denying the motion.
Judge De Bolt announced yesterday
nat he was ready to take up any
or probate matters at 8 a. m.
md 4 p. m, outside the regular jury
hours of his court.
In the case of E. Ayau who is on
rial in Judge De Bolts court on |
harge of having defrauded the Pacific |
hardware Company while an employee
hereof, by delivering certain goods to
arious Chinese firms, and Withholding !
money therefor from his employers,
Ield the boards yesterday afternoon.
L1ghtfoot moved for a nonsuit as
0 the case of the Pacific Hardware
%. VS.. the Sing Chan Co, which COM J
any is alleged to have profited by
Ayaa's dealings. The case was con-
lnued until today.