The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1906-02-10
SAYS COURT
WAS M|SLEO
Justice gtarsWelI Cited
Against Himself.
Will Case.

PENDANT by his attorneys. Castle IL
| Wilmington, has filed a petition for
rehearing in the Supreme Court. It
occupies seventeen typewriter pages.
On page II the petition says:
The grounds taken by the court
are not those presented at the argu-
ment. Had they been presented we
| think we could have easily met them,
and that we are entitled to argue them
| to the court. The difficulty seems to
be that the case presented by the
| opinion and the case argued before the
! court have no direct relation to each
other. and the court seems to have
| been misled by unconsciously follow
| ing a train of thought not adequately
| threshed out at the BAR
| In another part Of the petition JUS
| tice Hartwen is quoted, against the
! opinion written by him in this case, III
a decision of his when formerly a
Justice of the Supreme Court. This
was in the Nakuapa case thirty-two
years ago. He held there that "a
statement by plaintiff tnat she never
pretended to have any right to the
property of Nakuapa' is alone enough
to sustain a verdict against her" In
the present case statement of the
late Queen Kapiolani to w. r. Cas-
tie. that she had no interest in the
lands in question. is held not to estop
Kapiolanis successors from claiming
one of such lands.
The Supreme Courts refusal to con-
4 "a - .traH-t. 1 wi
dence allowed to go to the jury is at
tached, the petition asking:
"Of what value is the right of trial
by jury if an appellate court is to say
that this evidence or that evidence had
no influence on the verdict and there
fore they will affirm it?''
Summing up, the attorneys for the
defendant say in conclusion:
Upon the foregoing reasons we
think the interest of justice, of sound
law and of confidence in the ability of
the courts to administer it, call for
rehearing of this case, in which the
work of counsel on either side, search
ing, careful and considerate as we
think it was, has been entirely over
looked in the decision of the case.
I'VE think upon the decision of this
petition we are entitled to the willing
ear, discerning mind and unbiased
judgment of the court upon the prop
ositions which are presented, and that
the cause should not be finally decid-
ed upon grounds which have had no
adequate consideration in the argu-
nent at the bar, the best form in
which to test their values, and which
upon examination are found not to be
sustained by the very authorities
cited"
Plaintiffs in the Rodrigues will case.
by their attorney. w. c. Achi, have
filed a joinder in demurrer. They say
that the court has jurisdiction, land
that the defendants attorneys know
it, Further they say:
THAT it does appear on the face of
said bill that there is a great present
necessity for the construction of said
will; while the trustee, J. A. Magoo1',
and one of the attorneys for defend
ants, had collected over $4,000 from the
estate, and paid all to the widow and
other defendants; he had deprived the
plaintiffs of their share in the money
and acted contrary to the rights of
plaintiffs, making a false claim that |
the will authorizes him to do so.
The plaintiffs further claim that |
w ME there - u d1SpuIe pSI"tSh Tie |
heirs or legatees for their rights under |
the terms of the WILL the court of |
equity should interpret the Will
APPEALS TRANSMITTED.
Appeals from Honolulu District
Court have been sent to the Circuit
Court as follows:
Chung ing, from fine of s75 and
costs for selling opium without a doc
tors prescription.
All Sin, from fine of 800 and costs
FOR selling whisky without a license.
Henry Hogan. from fine of S25 and
costs for assault on Frank Jacintho.
Defendant in suit of Clark & F'rear.
dentists. from judgment of $51.7S for
plaintiffs.
Defendant in suit of Gilbert x Alt
nan VS.. Morris Rosenoedt from Judg-
nent of 1892 1-2 for plaintiff. Ac,
:ording to the record, defendant |
brought plaintiff. who is a chemist
here from Chicago to work a distilling .
Whisky from molasses and okolehao |
rom ti-root Altman received $500 be-
ore leaving Chicago for his expenses
nut and some pay after arrival. When |
lie lad been here about two months ,
2osenbledt cut expenses on him. told
lin he was done with the thing and
advised him to leave. He received 1928 :
'ut said he should have received 1855.
Waving $131 in his complaint. III
laimed $500 Judgment was for $175
n the claim and the balance of The
um above stated for costs. etc.
COURT NOTES.
demurrer to the second amended
i'll of complaint has been filed in the
uit of Hawaiian Carriage Manufac-
urinS co. VS.. Schuman Carriage Co
Among other things defendants attor-
eys. \. :. Humphreys and s b
>ingsbury, set up that the contrac,
n question is contrary to the anti
rust law of the United States.
judge Lindsay has ordered that a