The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1907-04-10
THE SUIT WAS
WRONGLY BROUGHT
Judge Whitney Gives Verdict
For Ayres in Defunct
Eagle Case.

The case of Harry T. Mills VS.. H. NJ
| Ayres, came up in the District Court
yesterday and resulted in verdict for
| defendant, Mills being ordered to pay
court costs. The suit was to recover
1892 alleged to have been owed Wall,
Nichols Co. by Ayres, on account of a
| paper called the Sunday Eagle, print
ed by that firm in 1899. Ayres is now
running The Referee and Mills man
aged to temporarily tie up all adver-
garnishee.
F E. Thompson represented defend
ant.
During the progress of the case, w
F. Sabin, The Referees artist, was en-
gagged in sketching the features of a
person in the courtroom. Mills took
offense at this and jumping at the con-
clusion that he was the victim of the
pencil, strobe over to where Sabin was
sitting and said:
IF you go ahead and put carica-
ture of me in the paper, I'll knock
your head off-you'n see.'
And the artist went on sketching.
Raposo, bookkeeper in the employ
of Wall, Nichols Co, swore that, in
count of the bill. This, were it true,
would have taken the case out of the
statute of limitations.
The witness admitted that the in
debuedness of the Sunday Eagle was
in the first place entered on the books
of the firm in the papers name, but
said that later he had put Ayres name
at the head of the account, bearing in
mind the loss sustained by the firm
over the publication of the Sunday
Vo.cano, which had an account in its
own name.
w. c. Wall testified that he was out
of the country when the paper was
being printed by his firm. When he
returned he had a discussion with his
of continuing to print the paper. He
had sold the bill to Mills for IS, and
some other consideration.
H. M. Ayres identified a file of pa
pers offered in evidence as copies of
the Sunday Eagle newspaper. He
said that he and Sabin were partners
in the paper and shared equally loss,
profit and labor. The superscription
of the paper plainly showed this part
nership.
w. F. Sabin said practically the |
same thing.
Mills in his address said that it was
simply a case of two friends standing /
together to beat a just debt. Forget
ting the former testimony of the as
signment of the debt, he said:
1T doesn't stand to reason that a
reputable corporation like Wall, Nj
;hols Co, would come into court and
tell a lie for the sake of giving an
of life to a paltry account"
Il didn't know that Wall, Nichols
20. were in court, remarked Thomp-
Fought the claim
1T isn't a case of veracity but of
aw,'' said Thompson, in conclusion,
and we have the law on our side. The
sunday Eagle, as Wall, Nichols books
how, opened an account, which Raposo
eaded 'Ayres' on his own responsible
Ly. If "Ayres' and Sabin are standing
4 together, the latter clean outdoes {
Damon and Pythias for by acknowledge
lg the partnership he shoves his head
ITO the moose of liability.
In this case the statute of limitations
1tervenes ara it is very clear that
laintiff has barked up the wrong I
zee. He had no right to sue Ayres
hen Sabin had a half interest in the
1ncern. r
Judge Whitney held that in accord
nee with the partnership the suit 7
lould have been brought conformity