The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1908-12-01
CATHCART NEED
GIVE NO SECURITY

Judge De Bolt held Saturday that,
under his Interpretation of the statute,
it was not within his discretion to re-
quire John w. Cathcart to give secur.
ity for costs in his FIVE suits against
the Hawaiian. Gazette Company and
Walter g. Smith.
The motion for an order requiring
Cathcart to give such security was
made on behalf of the defendants and
was supported by an affidavit alleging
that Cathcart was without means and
insolvent, and would not be able to
answer for the costs in the event that
judgment was given against him; and
that the costs would probably be large,
perhaps $3.50 in each case. To this
Cathcart replied in an affidavit in which
he alleged that he had large and
growing practice, and had just been
elected City and County Attorney for
two years.
In reply to this, affidavits were filed
by l.. A. Thurston and Auditor Bick-
nell. Thurston, in his affidavit, set out
the judgments rendered against Cath
cart in the circuit courts, and that none
of them had been paid except by the
process of garnisheeing his salary, and
that there yet remained certain judg-
ments not paid. He also alleged that
the Commercial Agency in Honolulu
reported Cathcart as a man to whom it
is not safe to extend credit. Bicknell
in. his affidavit, gave list of the gar
nishee summons served on him as Aud
itor by creditors of Cathcart, and the
amounts still due.
Cathcart Saturday fled an affidavit
in which the statements in the Thurs.
ton affidavit and the Bicknell affidavit
regarding the judgments and garnish.
ments against him were substantially
repeated in different language and for
the purpose of bringing out that some
of the judgments had finally been paid
and that there remained garnishments
against his salary as County Attorney
of only $495.46. He also charged l.. A.
Thurston with instigating suits against
him, particularly those of Carl Smith,
the Herrick Company, and II. II. Mills;
alleging also that A. S. Humphreys, as
well as Mr.. Thurston, instigated the
latter case.
On motion of Robbins Anderson, rep
rescnting the defendants, most of this
part of Cathcart affidavit was stricken
out as being irrelevant and scandalous.
a. G. NJ. Robertson and +. w. Mil
verton appeared for Cathcart Robert
son argued that to require Cathcart to
give security when he might not be
able to would be to deprive him of the
right to seek justice in the courts; chat
he ought not to be required to give
costs simply because-he was poor or in
solvent or had suffered ill-luck. He also
argued that the motion had not been
made in time.
Mr.. Anderson argued that it had been
shown that Cathcart was insolvent and
that not to require security would be
to compel the defendants to extend
credit to him when his commercial
rating was that it was unsafe to ex.
tend credit to him. t4rtg
81 AS soon as argument was concluded
Judge, De Bolt read his decision, he
having evidently written it out before
hearing the argument, with the excep-
ton of the citations from decided cases.
He read number of these, in which,
in general it was held that the statutes
under which they were rendered did
not require a resident sutton to give
security for costs merely because hed
wasrpoor or insolvent, but only when
there was something to show that he
was bringing the suit for purposes of
vexation. Judge De Bolt held that
those decisions were the correct inter
probation of the Hawaiian statutes and
therefore he refused to order the
plaintiff to give security for costs. Mr..
Anderson noted an exception to the
decision. ..