The Hawaiian gazette., 1871-05-03
J UU HIVUV'
w. C. Jones for the Libellant.
S. B. Dole for the Libellee.

[NorE.-The following are the decisions in England
where Parliament is supreme Noon rs. burden,
Ereh., (W II. G.,) Al. An Act providing
that no suit shall be brought mqintaiaed for tn,
recovery of any sum alleged to be won as
wager held not to defeat action already
commenced. Barons Parke and Anderson both ex.
pressed their opinions in this case the former using
the following words: "It seems strong thing to
hold that the legislature could have meant that a
party who under a contract made prior to the act
had as perfect title to recover a of money, as
he had to any of his personal property, should be
totally deprived of it without compensation. 1t is
still stronger thing suppose that if he has already
commenced an action with an undoubted right to re-
his debt and costs, he should not only forfeit
BOTH but also be liable pay the costs of his adver-
sary by being obliged to discontinue" Wright rs.
Hale, Each, (H d NJ 2sO. A statute giving the
Court power to deny costs to plaintiff, applies to
pending case. The judges there rest their decision,
largely the fact that if wrong the higher Court
will correct it, except Baron Wilde who says The
rule is that when new enactment deals with rights
action unless it so expressed in the Act an ex-
sting right of action is not taken away. But where
the enactment deals with procedure only unless the
contrary is expressed, the enactment applies to all
actions whether commenced before after the passing
of the Act" 1t is noticeable that Moon vs. burden
is not referred to in this case, but the opinion is
strong enough to decide the case at bar Kimberley
rs. Draper, B. O. B. 1862, Qs6s) A statute requiring
security for order enable plaintiffs to con-
duct actions in a Supreme Court applies to pending
case. All the judges in that case express doubts Of
the decision, which is mainly based on the authority
of the preyOns decision of Wright vs.. Hale, but both
cases 60 only to the point of costs.
Pardo Bingham. Chaneery 7S5, Qs69.) An
action for debts contracted in Venezuela before July
1916. although that date the Statute of six years
limitation for bringing suit excepted persons beyond
seas, was dismissed on TIE ground that subsequent
Act removed this exception In this case Lord Chan
cellor Hathery while approving the decision in Moon
Va Durden draws this distnction that in the latter
case, the person had actually brought an action be-
fore the passed and to hold the action retro
spective, would have deprived him Of right r6ieh
he had actually acquired" De Wolf ps Lfud.eH,
Eq., 2I2. surety bond executed in 1854 is en-
titled to the benefit Of an Act passed in 1856, giving
him the benefit Of any Judgment obtained against the
debtor. The Master Of the Rolls Lord RomiIly here
said that The Act in question is not what is com
monty called retrospective it was not intended for
example, to apply to aefsHs going on The time l5Een
It ras pared" Couch rs. Jefreys, Burr, 1850.
An Act providing that if certain stamp duties should
be paid by certain date, " the person who had in
CURED the penalty BY the omission shall be discharg-
ed of and from the penalty does not discharge