The Hawaiian gazette., 1907-04-12
THE SUIT WAS
WRONGLY BROUGHT

The case or Harry It. Mills va III. 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
sl32 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 il now
running The Referee and Mills man.
aged TO temporarily tie up all adver-
Using accounts due him. by process OF
garnishee.
f. e. Thompson represented defend
ant.
During the progress OF the case, w.
+. 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'll see."
And the artist went on sketching.
Raposo. bookkeeper in the employ
OF Wall, Nichols Co., swore that. in
1901, Ayres paid him a dollar on ac-
count OF the bill. This, were 1t true,
would have taken the case out OF the
statute of limitations.
The witness admitted that the in
debtedness 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 discussion with his
partner Nichols over the ACCESSIBILITY
of continuing to print the paper. He
had sold the bill to Mills for So, and
some other consideration.
ii. 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 1t was
simply a case of two friends standing
together to beat 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
chols Co., would come into court and
tell lie for the sake of giving an
extension of life to paltry account"
Il didn't know that Wall, Nichols
Co. were in court, remarked Thomp-
son." l understood that Mills had
bought the claim"
1T isn't a case of veracity but of
law" said Thompson, in conclusion,
land we have the law on our side. The
Sunday Eagle, as Wall, Nichols books
show. opened an account. which Raposo
headed "Ayres' on his own responsible
lily. If "Ayres" and Sabn are standing
In together, the latter clean outdoes
Damon and Pythias for by acknowledge
ing the partnership he shoves his head |
into the moose of liability.
In this case the statute of limitations |
ntervenes and 1t Is very clear that |
plaintiff has barked up the wrong
rec. He had no right to sue Ayres |
when Sabin had half interest in the
Judge Whitney held that in accord
ihce with the partnership the suit
mould have been brought conformity
ma gave verdict for defendant.