The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1907-11-01
TWO NOT THE
SAME AS EIGHT
cFrom Wednesdays Advertiser.)

suit brought by William ]. Lowrie
against H. p Baldwin ct al. was made
yesterday when memoranda for the
plaintiff on the defendants application
for an order staying proceedings until
the Massachusetts, court has decided
the action brought there was filed.
The memoranda cites host Of author
tiles against the order for a stay OF
Free eedings, arguing that the case in
the Hawaiian courts and that in Bos-
ton are different actions.
TIE Boston action states other causes
OF action besides those set out in The
crml 1aint filed here. There are five
counts there and only three here.
Moreover. there are no two counts
that are identical. The plaintiff
quotes to the effect that in ordinary
actions a suit pending in one state
cannot be pleaded in abatement or in
bar of another suit in a different state,
but that both may proceed until judg-
ment is rendered in one of such suits,
when it may be set up in bar of the
further maintenance of the other.
Objection also is taken to the claim
that the defendants in both actions are
the same, there being only James B.
and w. R. Castle named in the Boston
action and six others in the action
here. '"fwo are not the same as
eight" is the automatic summing up
of this phase of the argument
1.-The plaintiff selected the Massa-
chusetts forum, because it is con-
venient one for him." states the memo
randa. He brought the action here,
because certain defendants whom he
endeavored to serve there procured an
order setting aside the service upon
them, and he wishes to save his rights
against these defendants, and also
against the S. N. Castle Estate, Linn
tied, and perhaps some other persons
if he finds that they may be made par
ty defendants"
JUDGE DOLE REVERSES HIM.
SELF.
Judge Dole yesterday morning rem
dered a decision in the case of Jacob
B. Laweliilii versus George U. Hind
and James Rolph Jr., doing business
under the firm name of Hind, Rolph
& Co., in which he reverses a decision
of his own in a former case and
acknowledges that mature considera-
ton has convinced him of the error
Of his former judgment. The action is
a case in admiralty, In which the
papers were served on j. s. Low and
Hind, Rolph & Co. as agents. 1t was
eontended that the service should be
set aside on the grounds that neither
Low nor Hind. Rolph & Co. were the
proper parties to serve.
A portion of the decision says:
I'm America, while there is ample
provision for service OF process on the
agents of absent corporations, the
local laws generally requiring from
the corporations the nomination of
yet there are no precedents that have
been able to find for similar service on
agents of absent partnerships. On
the other hand, the English practice |
mas developed a rule that where an
absent company has brought itself |
within the Jurisdiction of the local
courts, by trading on its soil and under |
of its laws, the head officer |
or manager of such business within |
he jurisdiction might be served with /
process.
1.-The libellees were doing business |
n Honolulu and at San Francisco, and
%. Their Honolulu house is conducted |
,y Mr.. ]. S. Low, who was recognized /
~ them as their attorney in fact.
The ship which occasioned the injury |
o libellant was out of the jurisdiction,
Ind it became, supposedly, necessary
or the libellant to bring his action
n personam. If the rule is followed
hat there can be no service on the
gent or manager of a branch house
# a firm in the absence of the part
ers, it would appear that this libellant
would be deprived of his right to pros
cute his case. Although this court is
f practice in similar proceedings, yet,
nder the laws referred to and rule of
No. 46, it is authorized and
within the limits of the
tatutes and the rules of Admiralty
lade by the Supreme Court, to regu-
ite its Gown practice as may be nee
essary or convenient for the advance
lent of justice and the prevention of
elays in proceedings. Sec. 91S r. S.
7. S.
Il therefore base the decision in this
latter on the ground of the necessity
lat some reasonable service shall be
Ossible for the furtherance of justice ,
nd for the prevention of delay, and
lat it shall not be said that any per-
ms, either singly or as partners, may
} a maritime business in this coun-
Y and escape legal responsibility by i,
wing out of the Jurisdiction of the
ederal Court.
with the opportunity of a more ex-
lustive study of the point raised by
e motion, which the rehearing has q
ven, do not hesitate. in accordance U
it'll the foregoing considerations to
verse the former decision on this
int, but reaffirming such decision as
the other points raised by the libel
rs briefs. The motion to set aside a
e service of summons is overruled. {,
The syllabus is as follows: ;,
Practice. Authority of district court :,
regulate its own practice. In cases =,
provided for by the Admiralty :,
lies or legislation it is competent for =
district court to regulate its '"prac- :,