Case ID: haw_34/html/0685-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HENRY W. HELBUSH v. EDWARD MITCHELL, JR., MRS. E. MITCHELL, JR., DUKE RENTER, HENRY H. WILLIAMS, JOHN B. KAAHUONAALII, ANDREW KALINCHAK, FRANCIS C. THOMAS, DOROTHY M. CAREY, JOHN P. ROSA AND SOL K. MALINA, DEFENDANTS, AND E. P. MURRAY, AUDITOR OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, GARNISHEE.
    No. 2303.
    Filed November 9, 1938.
    Decided November 25, 1938.
    Peters and Kemp, JJ., and Circuit Judge Stafford in Place of Coke, C. J., Absent.
   Per Curiam.

This is a petition for a rehearing. With the exception of certain inaccuracies in the decision to which we shall hereafter refer, none of the grounds alleged do more than categorically criticize the decision as erroneous assumptions of law and fact, inadvertent disregard of substantive or statutory law and incorrect application of, or the failure to apply, certain aids to statutory construction. Nothing constructive is advanced further than was heretofore presented in the briefs. The court is not conscious of any mistake of law or fact in reaching its conclusion. Nor has the court overlooked or failed to consider any point by reason of which its decision would be changed. None of the members of the court entertain any doubt of the correctness of the conclusions reached nor desire further argument on any of the points involved.

The inaccuracies to which we referred are the failure of the court in its observation of the use of the word “interest” in the moneylenders’ Act to include section.5 of the Act and incorrect computations of interest at the rate of one per cent per month upon the actual amount borrowed. In the first instance the use of the word “interest” in section 5 of the Act carries no greater significance than its use in sections 2 or 4 of the Act or both. In the latter instances the errors are merely clerical and may and should be corrected by the clerk upon the original decision as filed. The word “month” in both sections 7058 and 7064, R. L. 1935, was generally conceded to mean a calendar month and that interest “at the rate of one per centum per month” should be computed accordingly. It was so computed in the decision. In any event neither of the inaccuracies referred to affects the results.

8. 0. MclntireJ Smith, Wild, Beebe & Oades; Hewitt & Tavares and W. B. Lymer for the petition.

The motion for a rehearing is denied.