The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1909-07-20
STRIKE LEADERS
TRIAL BEGINS
Opening Statement Is Made
in the Conspiracy
Case.

The jury in the riot trial had not been
discharged ten minutes yesterday be
fore Attorney Kinney was making the
opening statement for the prosecution
in the case of the Territory of Hawaii
against the FIVE leaders in the higher
wage agitation, F. Maxine, Y. Sega, NJ.
Negoro, Y. Tasaka, and K. Kawamura.
The five defendants are charged with
conspiring to obstruct the operation of
FIVE sugar plantations, Honolulu, Kahu-
ku, Oahu, Eva, and Waialua, and by
" certain indirect, sinister and unlaw-
full measures and means, to Witty in
timidating and threatening violence
against, and by instigating and melting
others to intimidate and threaten vio-
ience against, and melting and insti-
eating assaults and batteries upon all
Japanese in the City and County of
Honolulu aforesaid, then and there be-
ing who opposed or should oppose an
immediate demand being made by the
japanese laborers upon said sugar
plantations for an increase in wages.
In his opening statement, Mr.. Kinney
read the charge against the five de-
summary of the circumstances that led
to the making of the charge against
the men. Upon the conclusion of Mr..
Kinney's statement, Attorney Light
foot for the defense made motion that
the defendants be discharged on the
ground that even if the charge were
proven against them it would not con
stitute sufficient ground for convie-
ton. The motion was promptly denied
by Judge De Bolt.
The first witness will be called by the
prosecution tomorrow morning at $50
o. clock, to which hour adjournment
was taken yesterday morning upon the
conclusion of the preliminary proceed
ings. Half-past eight will be the regu
lar hour for the converting of court. A
brief recess will be taken at 9:45 and
adjournment for the day at 1890.
Exceptions Overruled.
A decision was handed down by the
Supreme Court yesterday overriding
the exceptions in the case of Solomon
Kauhane, Kapeka Kauhane, Wanna
hui Kauhane and K. Kauhane, minors,
by their guardian Henry Smith, and
Kapeka Baker against William Laa.
The case was an action for money
received from the rentals of land, al
legged to have been collected by the
defendant. The verdict was for the
plaintiffs for $3.50 and interest, a num-
Der of exceptions having been brought
by the defendant Laa.
In the course of the decision the
Supreme Court says:
"The land which yielded the rents
in controversy was awarded by patent
to one Nakaikuana. also called in the
evidence Kaikuana. The patentee died
about 1858, leaving surviving him a
brother, Hao, and no issue. Hao in
turn left surviving him Pelani, his
widow, and three children, Solomon
Kauhane, Haul, also called Haul Opio,
and Laa the defendant. In 1880 Solo
est in the land to Pelani. Haul Opio
died in 1885. Subsequently Pelani ex,
ecuted deed of all of her interest to
Kauhane. The lease under which the
rents il question accrued was executed
by Pelahi while she held the title to
a portion of the land. The minor plain.
tiffs are the children, and Kapeka
Baker the widow, of Solomon Kauha-
ne. The foregoing facts are practical
ly undispnted on the evidence On the
issue whether Haul Opio died before
or after reaching the age of majority
the evidence is conflicting, but there is
clearly sufficient evidence to justify
the finding, which was evidently made
by the jury, that he was Of age, in
which event his interest passed to his
mother Pelani as his sole heir The
jury could also have well found that
Kaikukuana did not leave widow and
that his parents died before him. Up.
on the questions whether Kaikuana,
the patentee, had another brother, Haul,
whether Haul died before or after the
the patentee, and whether he was ever
and, to our minds, somewhat unsatis-
factory state. The testimony on this
point came from witnesses whose recol-
lection, apparently, was vague and I'M
certain or who were not adhering strict
~ to the truth in all that they said.
The state of the evidence, however,
was such as to support the finding,
which the verdict shows must have
been made by the jury, either that
Haul Sr. was not the brother of Kai-
kuana, or if he was, that he died be-
fore the patentee and left no issue or
that he was never married, in which
latter event it would be immaterial
whether he died before or after Kai-
kuana. On any of these theories the
plaintiffs would be entitled to recover
two-thirds of all of the rents collected
by the defendant during the period in
controversy, which is what the Jury