The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1907-12-13
THE AMENDED
COMPLAINT FILED
Judge R0binson,s Decision in
the w. ]. L0Wrie
Case.

the suit of William j. Lowrie V. H. P.
Baldwin and others, to file an amend
ed complaint.
The amended complaint was filed al
most Immediately. Besides making
some changes in the method of stating
the plaintiffs cause Of action, it makes
considerable difference in the parties
defendant. The defendants in the
amended complaint are H. P. Baldwin,
j. B. Castle, William r. Castle, George
p Castle, the s. N. Castle Estate, Ltd,
Joseph P. Cooke, and w. NJ. Alexander.
The sisters of James B., William R.
and George p. Castle, who We're made
parties in the original complaint, are
omitted in this, and the s. N. Castle
Estate is made party instead. The
amended complaint contains three
counts. In the first and second it is
alleged that contract was made with
Lowrie by the defendants, in order TO
obtain his services, whereby in consfd-
Grafton of his refusing a fiattering of
fer from the Waiaiua Agricultural
company he was promised the option
of 5000 shares of Hawaiian Commercial
7 stock at the price the syndicate got it
at, and all the time he needed in which
to dispose of other stock TO pay for
1 anu III duulIlOIl the VI
Hawaiian Commercial for five years;
that in January, 1900, the contract was
broken by his. being discharged as
manager. and being thereby rendered
unable to pay for his 5000 shares. He
was obliged to sell and thereby was
done out of the opportunity to make
$500. 900. The third count sets up the
same contract, but instead of alleging
q mere breach of the contract by the
defendants and thereby the loss of the
opportunity to make S400, 900 it is al
legged that in order TO themselves make
the profit and to give Baldwin the
position of manager of the plantation,
they dismissed him from his position
as manager.
The amended complaint was immedi-
ateIy given to High Sheriff Henry for
service.
motion was at once made on be-
half of the defendant, H. p. Baldwin,
for a bill of exceptions to the decision
and order TO take before the Supreme
Court the decision of Judge Robinson
on the ground that it will tend to the
speedy determination of litigation.
In his opinion, the preparation OF
which had involved the looking up of
more than 500 citations of authority,
Judge Robinson sums up the objec-
tions urged to the motion as follows;
/. That the court must pass on the
good faith of the plaintiffs proposed
amendments;
2. That the court in passing on said
question of good faith should consider
the facts set forth in the affidavits;
8. That the uncertainty, evasiveness
and ambiguity in the proposed amend
ed complaint, particularly in the addi-
ton of the contract allegations in the
third count and in the insertion OF the
word Certain" in the last paragraph
of the first and second counts of said
amended complaint
f. That the allegations contained IN
the several counts or causes OF action
set out in the proposed amended COM
plant whereby the contract sued upon
is attempted to be set out are incon-
sfstent with the asserted memoranda
thereof, comprising a number or let
tiers. copies of which are attached 10
and made part of said proposed
amended complaint. in their chron-
illogical order, marked alphabetically,
as exhibits: Il
& That the contract sued upon is
indefinite in terms and might be broken
at any time without liability for more
than nominal damages;
g.. That the damages claimed are
too remote. speculative and uncertain
TO sustain cause of action;
z. That there is a misjoinder of
counts or causes of action in said pro-
posed amended complaint, and
s. That the contract sued upon IS
void as against public policy.
The first three. he says, are not or
sufficient Importance to need extended
consideration.
AS to the fourth objection, Judge
Robinson says, it is not alleged or
claimed in the proposed amended COM
plant that the copies of the letters
attached to said proposed amended
complaint, and therein referred to as
exhibits, either singly or as whole,
constitute the contract sued upon. On
the contrary the proposed amended /
COMPLAINT distinctly alleges that the |
exhibits constitute merely memoranda |
of the contract in suit, and carefuI
examination of the exhibits fails to /
disclose any inconsistency between |
them and the contract alleged.
AS to the objection that the contract
is for an indefinite term and so might
be broken at any time without liabii-
ity for more than nominal damages, It
may be said that the failure to state
specific term or time for the per-
IOTE1dAGG OF CoHlpAStlc1A VI q
does not necessarily render the term
of the contract or the time for its
performance or completion indefinite
or uncertain or make the contract de-
-terminable at will. THAT is certain |
which can be made certain" and i'll !
order To arrive at the true intent or
the parties in making and entering
into the contract, as to the time tor
its commencement. performance ana
completion. the relations of the parties
and all Of the surrounding facts and
circumstances may be shown. in order
that any one or all of these matters
may be determined by the jury as
matters of fact. Courts in the con-
struction of contracts look to the
language employed, the subjeet-matter
and the surrounding circumstances.