The Hawaiian gazette., 1905-01-17

NAillfW Ailf NMNt VIZ III NDNU lnlAhN
stated. T.. NJ. Watson ana Holmes 4
Stanley appeared for plaintin, ana
Castle y Wilmington Tor defendant.
The exceptions are to the verdict OF
the jury and rulings of Judge Robin
son.
LARCoNI VS.. CROSS.
! Marconis Wireless Telegraph Co. VS..
Frederick J. Cross Is decided In favor
OF defendant, IN an opinion written by
Justice Hartwell which overrules the
exceptions of plaintiff to verdict for
defendant. Circuit Judge De Bolt sat
1 In place OF Justice Hatch. Kinney,
Mechanism & Cooper and S. II. Der
by appeared for plaintiff, and J. w.
Cathcart for defendant.
q Marconis company of England sued
on contract made with Cross, where
by the company was to install wire
less telegraph system In the Hawaiian
Islands, and Cross TO pay sl1.c00 in
two equal instalments after the sys-
TEN should be in working order and
$500 ($2500) yearly rent for five years.
At the time of making the agreement
I Marconi's representatives told Cross
that they might make contract with
him and he could assign ii TO his COM
pany, which, as defendant testified,
twas agreeable and 1t was done"
Cross organized the Inter-Island Tele-
graph Co, assigning the contract
thereto, and this company paid the
plaintiff company the first instalment
of $500. In the transactions of the
plaintiff in these islands it dealt with
the local company, and the origin of
the suit is thus described in the courts
opinion:
3, Considerable expense was incurred
for changes required to make the sys-
tenn work, and disputes arose whether
the plaintiff should bear the expense.
Twenty hundred dollars were
paid by the local company on account
OF these changes and 5000 were adj
vanced by ii at the request of the
plaintiffs agents. AT last the plain
tiff, finding the stockholders of the
4 local company dissatisfied and not dis
posed TO advance more money, inform
ed the defendant that it held him per-
sonally liable on the agreement. The
jury found for the defendant and the
case comes here on the plaintiffs bill
of exceptions"
Two lines of defense We're taken by
the defendant. First, that the plaintiff
had not performed it's part of the
agreement, and, second a novation, by
the plaintiff accepting the Inter-Island
Telegraph Co in place of the defend
ant to perform his part of the agree
ment. The court finds there was evil
dence to support each one of these
defenses. Exceptions to the verdict
} and to refusal of the motion for new
trial are overruled. 1t Is found that
, the trial court correctly stated the law
: in its instructions to the jury
. Judge Robinson was the trial judge
, below.
GODFREY ROWLAND SUIT.
By the unanimous opinion of the
Supreme Court, written by Justice
Hatch, a new trial is ordered in the
case of Frank Godfrey, trustee for
Thomas Metcalf, VS.. Helen Rowland,
Hing Chung, ]. f. Francis, Kondo d.
o. Hammond, Jose Do Espirito Santo,
w. o. Smith, trustee, and Il. j. Gal
lagher. Plaintiff was represented by
Robertson az Wilder, f. Il. Thompson
and c. f. Clemens, and defendants by
Kinney, McClanahan & Cooper.
1t was a suit for one undivided half
of certain land situated on the north
west corner of Beretania and Alapai
streets in Honolulu The legitimacy
of Thomas Metcalf was in issue, also
the fact of a marriage between his
father and mother. The verdict of the
jury was this: I'VE the jury in the
above entitled cause find for the de.
PENDANTS in that the evidence fails to
show that record of the issuance OF
the marriage license was kept as re-
quired by law"
Instructions of the trial Judge Ode
BolD are in different respects held
Ito be erroneous and the decision con-
cludes thus: ''As to the defendan,
! Helen Rowland the verdict is set aside
? and a new trial ordered. The case IL
remanded to the Circuit Court for the
First Circuit for further proceedings
In the syllabus of opinion the law
relating to legitimacy is expounded
showing that the presumption of legi.
: timacy may be overcome by proof, but
the proof must "be clear, distinct and
y convincing" Other points of law
cleared UP are as follows:
"In order TO prove legal marrlas,
it is not necessary to prove that IL
: cense to marry was issued. The Ii
cense will be presumed from the cee
bration of the marriage. Nor need an!
!, ceremony be shown to prove mar
u riage.
THE provisions of sections 1870 anC
1911, Civil Laws, requiring a license t,
marry to be obtained, are director!
only, and failure to comply with tn,
same does not render a marriage void
:, 1T is not necessary to show, In or
Il der to prove a marriage, that a record
OF the issuance of marriage license
u was kept by the officer who issued the
: same"
Then, following the Legitimacy
clauses, is this:
"A deed of life tenant, Joined ir
. by remainder man, will not defeat
contingent estate in this jurisdlc.
tion. The common law respecting
= / fa.a "a