Case ID: haw_16/html/0782-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per curiam:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 6.
    Maria Correa v. L. M. Baldwin and W. E. Saffrey.
    Appeal from district court ,Wailuku, island of Maui.
    Submitted December 6, 1904.
    Decided December 27, 1904.
    Action for damages for taking a bull and several cows and calves and selling them on execution. Appeal by plaintiff. The points raised by the appeal are that the magistrate erred (1) in refusing to allow an amendment by adding one heifer and two calves, (2) in granting a continuance on an insufficient showing, and (3) in granting a continuance for an uncertain and indefinite period, namely, “until defendant L. M. Baldwin shall get well.” Defendant contends that questions of amendment and continuance are in the discretion of the trial court; also that the rulings made are not final for the purposes of appeal.
    
      J. M. Vivas for plaintiff.
    
      E. M. Watson and J. L. Coke for defendants.
   Per curiam:

An indefinite continuance by a magistrate is equivalent to an order of dismissal and is appealable. Humburg v. Namura, 13 Haw. 702. The denial of the amendment was interlocutory and not appealable by itself but the question of the correctness of the ruling may be raised on the appeal from the final judgment of indefinite continuance. Rulings upon amendments, although largely in the discretion of the trial court, may be reversed on appeal in case of abuse of discretion. Lum Sung v. Luning, 13 Haw. 665. The amendment should have been allowed in this case, and the indefinite continuance should not have been allowed. Judgment reversed and case remanded for further proceedings.