The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1907-07-28
MRS. NAkUINA
IN WARPATH
Blames Lawyers for Ab0rtive
Hearings for Which She
Was D0cked.

Mrs. Emma NJ. Nakuina, Commits
sioner of Private Ways and Water
Rights. viii not submit to being dock
ed of her official fees by the Supreme
Court without an effort to obtain a
hearing of her side of the case. She
has forwarded a request for rehear-
ing of the matter of costs in the right
of way suit of Woolsey V. Winston and
Let
From her statement OF the matter
the action OF the attorneys in object
ing to payment of costs for six or
seven hearings which We're postponed
does not look particularly fair, much
less chivalrous, to the lady judge. It
was the lawyers themselves who ap-
pointed every one of these questioned
hearings and, according to the Com
missioner, it was entirely their own
fault or laches that the hearing on
each occasion had to be continued. She,
on the other hand, was punctual in
attendance on the bench every time,
although sometimes having to cross
the rough Mo1okai channel in a dinky
little steamer to do so.
Another strong reason Mrs. Nakuina
gives for a rehearing is that she had
asked the Chief Justice to be called,
so she could explain the matter, in
the event of any of her charges for
hearings being protested. She says he
promised he would have her called up,
but supposes that pressure of business
drove the matter out of his mind.
Following is Mrs. Nakuina's letter
to Mr.. Smith, clerk of Judiciary, which
will bring the question Of a rehearing
before the Supreme Court:
Honolulu, T. H, July Is, 1907.
To Henry Smith. Esq, Clerk of the
Judiciary Department.
Sir: I beg to acknowledge the re-
ceipt by me of your letter in regard
to the adjustment of costs and ex-
penses incurred in the case entitled
Annie K. Woolsey v. E. c. Winston
and Lee Let, appealed to the Supreme
Court from the Commissioner of Pri-
vate Ways and Water Rights for the
Island of Oahu.
In answer thereto I wish to make a
statement in regard to the disallowed
hearings and request you to file same
before the Supreme Court, as follows:
In this particular case every one of
the hearings for my court has always
been set by all the counsel of the par
ties interested and are merely referred
to me for my consent, excepting, of
course, the very first one or what
might be called the return day In
that case, day for the hearing is set
by agreement only with counsel for
plaintiff as then it is not known what
counsel will appear for the defense.
In those disallowed hearings, it is
counsel alone and not my court who
invariably set the days for the sole
purpose of a hearing" I attended on
those days not to hear motions for a
continuance" but to "hear the case
only to be confronted in the court room
with talks of more delays on the part
of lawyers. At no time have attorneys
.condescended to notify me at my home
of any of their expected absences from
Honolulu. which could easily have been
done by stipulation or some other way
of avoiding my coming to the court
which all must concede is a matter OF
some expense.
Whenever I attended court seeming
ly for the purpose of a hearing one or
two of the lawyers in the case would
be found missing at the time of open
CONTINUED on Page Fourteen.)