The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1908-02-01
She HAD TWO
LIVE HUSBANDS
One a Witness in Behalf of
Annulment Suit of the
Other.

Marrying and giving in marriage,
lawful and unlawful, and the disrunt-
ing of marriages, for all sorts of
causes, make up one of THE most kaIei-
doscopic features of life in Hawaii.
Every now and then a case hobs up in
the divorce courts with enough COM
plications in it to make the most in
geniously constructed romance of fic-
ton look commonplace by comparison.
F. F. Calasopa's suit, which ended
successfully yesterday, for annulment
of his marriage to Nancy Calasopa,
sometimes known as Lewaina and. as
her latest husband took her, Nancy
Nicholas. exemplified two notorious
facts in the experience of Hawaiian
women. One is that, as the child
wives of Chinese, they in many cases
soon become tired of the bonds of ma
trimony, and the other that the Lusi-
tanian and the Hawaiian have about
the same affinity for each other as oil
and water
There was evidence that Akana, a
cabbage planter, procured a license to
marry Lewaina on January 8, 1896, and
that they were married the same day
al Wailuku by Rev. S. Kapu. Akana
brought his marriage certificate with
him to prove the union. Registrar Cen
eral Lawrence of the Board of Health
had the record book of vital statistics
there for confederation. Akana testi-
fed that Lewaina lived with him for
a year and a half, when she deserted
him and for ten years had not glad
dened his home. He said he was told,
when he married the girl, that she was
seventeen or eighteen years old.
That was over twelve years ago, but
the woman in court did not look TWEEN
ty-nine years old or near it. More like
nineteen, after the manner of Hawai-
ian womanhood. did she appear. She
was 1.-THE of form and graceful as a
fawn and her eyes, Illuminating fresh
and winsome features. had the won
dering timidity of a childs as they
furtively surveyed the interior of the
courtroom. Yet here she was, on her
defense to a suit for separation from
one man, with another man present to
prove his long prior marrying of her.
A native man, who knew about the
marriage of Akana and Lewaina, testi-
fled that it took place on July TO- 1906,
which is important only for contradict
ing other evidence oral and documen-
tary, that it was the ninth day Of
July.
An old native woman testified that
Lewaina was her niece and was mar
ried in her presence at Waikiki. First
she said Maui, and when asked where
Maui was, said, I'm the district of Wal
.luku" Other witnesses had mentioned
the church as the place where the
marriage was solemnized, but this one
said it was ''at the jair' and stuck TO
that. This might have been of signifi-
canoe, if the woman had tried to prove
that her marriage to Akana was illegal
and void, for the facts might have
gone to the question of her age at the
time. Sometimes in Hawaii court
of justice takes action that obviates
the use of counting as a preliminary
of marriage However, the aunt Of
Lewaina did not know why her niece
was married to Akana at the JAIL
Calasopa testified that he married
Lewaina under the name of Nancy
Nicholas in 1905. As his wife she lived
with him until September last. when
they separated. He had heard that she
was formerly married to a Chinaman
on Maui, and made Inquiries that re-
suited in finding that the other hus-
band was still alive. Naturally he
proceeded to sue for annulment of her
marriage to himself.
Samuel F. Chillingworth, counsel for
the defendant. did not put on evidence.
He submitted that, as the case involv-
ed the possibility of criminal prosecu-
ton for bigamy, the evidence should
be strictly interpreted. Therefore the
on the date of the Aka
ma marriage and other points formed
ground for dismissing the suit. He
asked that it be dismissed.
Judge Lindsay said that the record
in this case coelfd not be used in a
criminal prosecution and there was
sufficient evidence of the marriage to
Akana.
T. NJ. Harrison for the plaintiff ask
ed that the defendant be ordered to
pay reasonable attorneys fee. She
might have property and he claimed
that the plaintiff. in the circumstances,
was entitled to an attorneys fee as
well as costs.
Judge Lindsay would not entertain
the motion for a fee. The man took
the woman for better or for worse. 1t
had turned out for worse and he
should pay the expense of getting rid
OF her. He would sign a decree for
of the marriage.