Honolulu Republican, Volume IV, Number 493, 10 January 1902 — MANDAMUS IN KEW ALO SUBMITTED [ARTICLE]

MANDAMUS IN KEW ALO SUBMITTED

Case lost Begin Again 1: Hnmpbrejs Does Not Hear New Trial. y • ' UIBRIIU Cisnoi lilt USE * ■ • •-#. 1 ufc ; ll - _ IXSTIMOiiY IN : -p-fXRt t- rrrffCfr'CT3 ts .-i< rtiisetca ’ -i A I ” W " cT-u. li Yl a . | and Castle Latter {Values Leasehold Interest of Ho-Sfug-il Jto* l#e -XodtferOnetl -^t - - (Decision by Judge Humphreys. pvoa T b KsTTrutn *>ig«r "'f. troversy. the case of H. R. Hitchcock ■»-5..,ae asai.us£ First, First Cir- | ■ uit Qujfrt ariawd aa; submitted m i nB S Car.ft y*fterday. The Supreme Court hedrd the writ of tp copipel Jydge Humph- ; ref*.fo preside at the new trial of the Kftigiija, matt* p,. Magoon. Hatch and Stewart appeared for the ' petitioner* and Attorneys Robertson, t Hankey and McClanabar! Appeared for respondent. Magoon, Hatch and I Stewart, representing the plaintiff in j the KamSlo ease; ask that. Judge Hmnphrajfs should * (induct the new j trial. Robertson. Hankey and. Me--1 Clanahan represent the defendants in ; j.h v taste w contend Jttjlge Humphreys is' disqualified having | made the decree set aside by the Sul! preme Court. Nothing to Disqualify. The plaintiffs - attorneys contended 1 .that there was nothing in the rulings >» giver in the case by Judge Humph-; tCA’.s _iu dlsfluajify him. from hearing’ the evidence -whh-li was ordered’ I taken !>y the Supreme. Court. Attorney Robertson read from the- - decision of the t’irctiit Judge in which ■ f»e rcf>t««>T| to h»*»r «Im* euulellee now ordered taken. on the ground that the matter had 1»ee« gone into already.; The Kamaio stockholders' attorneys £ -» •. —• % • t contended it was, not shown by this that the judge was not open to the influence of the new testimony should it, be presented to Tvfhi. If Judge Humphr-ys cannot hear j thv new testimony it will mean a new, | beginning of the case, as a new judge j would hardly be able to take up the • ',-fise where it was left by Judge 1 Humphrcvs. ft Is said that Judge 1 near is disqualified as he was a partner of Gwrgc Paris while the latter was employed on the case. Judge Little may have to hctu - it. Called But Not Heard. Tin rise of C. A. Brown against J. •ft. Sprei kels al, exceptions from • Circuit Court, Fourth Circuit, Magoon & Thompson and Smith & Parsons ; for plaintiff appellant and Kinney. Ballou At McClanahan for defendant, was called in the Supreme Court yesj terday morning, but was not heard I «u acimnu of a decision that Justice : Galbraith was disqualified. The case j? one which involves lan.T j <»f con-dfleraMe value on the Hilo wat* rfnmt It was suggested by Attorney J. A. Magoqn that, as Justice Galbraith had b* (S’, Interested as an attorney in vapi .imi vases involving the ownership of . the land, he was probably disqualified from hearing the appeal. The ,'os.e WU.ilihn#ther member Ihp hnr is se(.-, fed JivVear it. After This’ vveelc it is probable th'at jjie Stu>r£pie Court will, adjourn untfl , March. So-far. * ighit-’-S’. cases have been argued si ait -Isubtijtted, There ;ir< no-Vetore a go 1 fnahy decisions t. handed down. The Suprenv [■Court adjourned early yesterday af-t-_ruOqn until this morning. In the Federal Court. Th>» reading of the past testinvmy n the cas of the Government acaf-n-t | the Honolulu Plantation Company in ' ■ t s ■ - I c jth- b-tiefij of the li- » juror, _M JT • Kohn. vha took th place of L..F . 1-• s. i»h «*. o ha«- -b» ,*» . xcusad for l fh r* st **f tfo* t rm *w account Of was n la !• •> yest-nlaf i aft rn<KU It t> ’ JiSfic: AtI fwpn n J J Jtiiah.< and Judg- 3 SilUjpan takity: the reading, , Tlh •vl.len^ 1 of U. ,Bjlte was albut- ’ * ■ ■ Tak e * r .- reason* ->f , onv n:en>-- Mr - s testimony as to the vaJue r of the Houolula Plantation L’onjraay’.s Kasvhold interest of tbr I land' sought to he con Jem uni was •that It "as Wurth JLV»C-o totb' lco»t>anv. J . i ‘ j \i , Th;s qualification was ordered , stricken ouk and Mr. waA.anfc.fi ' to state tfc- open aitrke* "wHifc Ms answer was from to JC'Vjri t for sugar raising pu^.ffe Inis estimate. b» «wid what ht^■■■jqt*'ijjt r-^j.the..lack's producing calcify., After tiw r-acitr.g of the pw't evid* See to rtf'- nt’w ju?dh. Chemist

Crawley. \y Ctjjwley gave V? mony la rvga t» fht bf the soit .Hfs r dence was <K)j«cta.i ;i xo ’ ftowy.r'T h*“ knew notilag’of tie of t Id QDf'jtiotW R. Castle estimated that t! V leasehold icterts; of des f . ? - J.' ■fudge K-atnf»ofe*a De-ti»*co. f Juie® Humphreys yesterday gat -* a wßt’-n decision on def-nlaa - * J murrer x?j the V- tara-job a tr- -rai if J J By-n- attiaic the Orpae'i Company. Limited, as follow*: "The defendant dtfmdrs to the d i -natation -on rb» zroohd that it do ■not far-ts y.fHri-pt to . a fac?-’* of a*Tfoti On th#- arg-ime.' • it was contended by -V-fen-iaet the fh* dettaraC s failed to alfege r ! 3how a consideration for the hahRH ’{ defendant in that there was no r, N rest allea-wf to ftaVe b**n made b il-fendait or any oft'hf? par to pay.' That part 'of th«f ft-clam*:-' to be con?^?r r a • jflDilow?: • -**» t—- • 1 ‘ i { fS*ol. <i r 5 ttliap.- - ka« ■WIOR-fl t«| ChfKTf ‘ jp-iKit. .’i/-41! tiiiipjrii, ,4;:n|Wi; to. *'goods bargained and sold, and soli deliver fa| yjf^^^opolitai Meat Company to defendant, an a> ? C n $ hH ®l ■ - - <? *- - - ■: That said sum of with in | Oerest from the date of accounts rend r erM fs due tliereon. and that defend 'ants fails. n<-gl«cts and refuses ipay the s*m*: although open requert ed so to Qo. . -■Xh% d eda rail op, fails to allege tha' the goods were sofd at the special in stpijce, and regyesi of the iefendam or otherwise ttf state any cohsl tera tion iof -th*’ -noptractnor does it al k-ge any proitiao ta pay on the pan jof the defendant. But even if a prom ise wen alleged to, hare been ipatk iby defudnnt. the declaratlOß would still be had ia-tlMrt It fails t* allegt: any consideration to support a prom fee. i*i jj I* » . n "The lav impib s a promfio- bf tbs defendant to pay under certain circumstances. but it wiTTiiol imply a consWerdfrcbt In assumpsit on rb nitir rcr, except where- the action i? brought on a promissory note, hill rt ! iiaajifet ur a. James Robinson Estate. Masters report in Ve the estate o( Jam- s Ruhitiscn. H-.-nrr Smith, mas tec, r« pip-tr ;he accounts of S. C. A- - and M. P. Ri4,iue<j.a correct ex ' 1 ept th- t'riisfee,;' present inventory ( it |i?r of securities. In regard to Ha waiian Government bonds, to |l7<iOfif whu-h -durimr the period of the pr - ent account were conyerterl into cash and from cash again to six per ceni bonds of th< HUo Railroad' Com pan v. A large part of rh’e conversion has occurred for the first time in the nis tory of the estate. A certain amount of the government beads wm soeir cities originally held by tha.testator in his lift-* time. Th» master enquired i of the trustees, no commissions hav ing ever been charged during the period of administration on this a«v tate or since, if It was their lnt--nti u ■to waive commissions on the aruoimt f bonds which were received by or transferred to them, now -that they have shown a conv trsinn of die same into cash for, ttu* first., time The reply came from the trustee: in the negative. The trustees in a > i■luaiaakation to the. luasler, say that they iielieve they arc entitled the oommisslous but have not taken ■ them. They ask That the matter b» submiif-d for the consideration ot the Th« matter ,has been set for Mott'Sa we'.*’