The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1874-10-31
Supreme Court. October Term, 1874.


HARals J. Akina vs. Antoine Manuel. THURSDAY
October zsth.)
Defendants motion fog a new trial, on the
grounds thai The verdict was against law that iha
damages were excessive; and that be had impor-
tant aud material evidence, not cumulative, which
had not been offered owing TO mistake or misap-
prehension between defendant and bis former
counsel, and that defendant being nnskilied ia the
English language had failed 10 make his said
COUNSEL fally understand bis Instructions aud
wishes concerning his evidence and witnesses.
Bond and andavits were fled. HartwelI for the
defendant
J.. A statute allowing a new trial Is remedial
aud should be literally construed Ia the further
ance of justice aud equity The a1ldaviis disclose
merits which ought to be tried.
?. The case shows not only misfortune, mistake
or accident Of the defendant bat fraud Of the
plaintiff in exaggeraiing his claim. IT is a case Of
surprise. for which this ignorant client could mel
Their have prepared himself or counsel Grounds
for a new trial in Equity are clearly shown, and
this Court has Equitable as we'll as Legal jurisdie-
lion.
3. No one will be harmed, as the plaintiff is Sc
cured by the defendants bond, by thorough ven
~tillation OF the whole case de MORO.
T. II is a new point 10 this Court, and the case
0EHNaAS SkANuEAN W y N0ueNAEhNN VI tnN 1Ntltl ~
allow a re-hearing.
Jones for the plaintiff:
1. This is a hybrid motion, asking to arrest
judgment, which can only be done for matters on
the record, and for a new trial for no grounds at all.
2. No Court Of law ever heard such a motion,
and there is no force or meaning in il. 1t is with
out form and void nothing but chaos and
tumble throughout. Darkness is upon the face of
Ii The dafanlapf vvapfS his eaco vnpa .nvar aud
comes in with a tissue of fahrications, asking for
another trial on grounds that in all legal expert
euce are without precedent This motion is like a
ship without a rudder, mast, hull, %bowsprit, stem,
or stern,-not even a cat-head. The defendants
affidavit is like an old woman's tale, with nothing
to start from, going nowhere, and ending in moth
ing. There is nothing in this motion to argue
against.
3. 1t is always suspicious when a party has had
able counsel who saw nothing more ia his case, If
new counsel come in with exceptions and motions
for a new trial.
4. II this motion were granted, every trial in
the country could be gone over. Natives, Chinese,
Portuguese and all would come in aud say they
" did not understand !" never yet tried a case
that / could not retry on such grounds.
5. The afidavits of the witnesses themselves
should be shown.
Hartweli, in reply
l. With great sympathy for the deep feeling OF
the plaintiffs counsel, and respect for his legal ex-
perience, l dissent from his idea that this motion is
full of evil. 1t is not hybrid, for it asks for a new
trial on grounds that appeal 10 every sentiment Of
right and honor, and asks that judgment be ar
rested. But let judgment be entered, if need be,
and the new trial then be ordered.
2. II a Court of law never granted n new trial
before for such grounds, it is high time to do so
now. The motion is really Objectionable, because
it has too much form and point in 1t TO suit the
plaintiff s counsel. Without using strong express
sions, for arguments, / say that if the learned
counsel in his skilIful preparation of cases never
thought of such grounds before, it is never too late
to learn.
3. As to the suspicion from new counsel stating
such grounds. it is enough to say, former counsel
are not likely to do so.
4. 1t is not necessary to try all cases over again
because injustice and wrong are shown to have been
done in this.
8. Afbdavits and witnesses should not be re-
quired if a party would lose his remedy while getting
them corporally into Court.
The Court took the case under advisement