The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1875-12-01

Galliard vs. Smart s CCuu., SIS An Auor.
ney mAy bind biz clients 10 waive a notice 10.
I Qaired By statate. willie the snlt i pending,
! Allen VS.. Gilmantau. An At,orney being IN
Court instead Of bis client, may make any dlspO.
j siton Of The suit and Omissions u nels which
I The party hinsplf could make Salk. S6s Ti,ld.
/ - THIS dees nol saejecs the parties TO any 90.
rcascuab,e risks, a. Ties select their own Altot.
ney. and L unAithial they have a legal remedy
against him cor mise0ndael 2 y. n. r. $50
lie may waive 0hlecliens 10 evidence. make
admissions IN plead,ugs. or by parul, and eater
non SUIT, " default. he can execale leases, or
conless Judgment
Ibis agreement Is part q the rccOrd, and can.
not Be eyadei o. avoided.
Yates vs. Russell, IL John. ass; Craaeh.
2s5,
Tho Judgment IN this case vas not fnal Toe
the party appealed, aud Instead Of Submitting
The eroands u ceiceuOus to appeal to The coa.
sdegauon " the Court, the Attorney tor the
p.aiO,d waived them. aud updyr that agreement
The appeal vas perfected, DO act rOganl u NJ
matter VI course. that The appeal N0ald have
beea dteslloNed. fhere uIay be such ut Vflurt on
the part Ol The Attorney 20 perfect The appeal
Ni1h'o The time rs TO satisfy the Court Tat 10
saoald be allowed although the papers we're not
filed a, the Gme with Tho clstk
J Do not regagd tho rule ~ laeSotaAle, IL u
The sans as provisloa ol law that When pruecss
"a issued against party service shah be made by
tue Msrshal OF ltdepsty, bal a. ia the constant
practice 10 waive u ~ TIE Arotury aud service
Is acknowledged by h,u, aud have uot known 10
called 10 question.
Attorneys aye responsible for faithful DIS.
charge Of their duties aud it IL not wvrth whic
10 limit Tue authority Which lAOT have usually
exercised 4N, rk.t rH
In Tue case OF MoaIou ", Bankur, lbs Macs.
X. 40, Caief Justice Gtey says INA. an Allor.
ney at law has an Authority, BY virtao Oi bis en-
ployment IS such, TO do In behalf 81 bis eheut aN
acts, IN or out Of Court, necessary ~ Incidental
% the prosecution and uiauagement Ol The SUIT,
sud which affect the remedy only and uN yAe
cause u action.
Chief Justice Shaw says, in the case OF Davis
vs., Sumner. IL Met. 27l, that When an appear.
anee Is entered Tor party by regular Attorney
oil parties have a right prima ac,e, 10 regard hlm
As The accredited representative 81 saeh party.
Il is begging tie question 10 say that the rghs
Of the party were legally established 10 this case
They aera not legally established Shils uneisS
discussion IN The Court. The case wits not set
tled,apd Jhers was 40 kual isdgReal,. iEis Is
the cause OF the error 10 reasoning.
Ii is not denied thai he Risy appeal, or refer
case 10 arbitration.
BeeklAna vs. Carney. Is Mass. Sg6. Should
tins authority exercised in t0is case be denied
40 Attorney, it would BE- restriction which by
analogy, would linil bis discretion TO a very
troublesome extent IN Court, and be would cease
10 BE-, ~ the language Of Chief Justice Shaw,
the representative OF his client
Ia tue case Of fhompson vs.. Hatel Piek. SD.
the plaintiff objected 70 the fling vi plea the
6ilh day Of term because by the rules Ct the
Court OF Common Pleas. % plea in abatement
could be fled aneT the fourth day of the term.
Had The plaintiff counsel 10 tue case at bar
objected 10 the perlecuug OF the appeal be would
have done il successfully so far as the case ap.
pears, but be deemed IL proper TO waive the time,
prescribed By the rules. aud l have 10 doubt that
IN the case OF Hatch IS. Thompson. had the
counsel waived the objection TO the day Of 6liog
the plea, the Court would have taken no notice
Of it,
/ submit with great respect that there is a very
great distinction in the cases cited in the opinion
oil the Court and the case at bar. 10 those cases
there was no waiver by the counsel OF the appel
lees-and thai Is The only question involved.
10 this case The question Of appeal was still
iayoiyed al the time Of the waiver. aud in cOnse-
qGence OF u, the appeal was perfected. aud the
case submitted without objection. to the full
Couri,-and ] am Of opinion that il is hardly
having allowed the appeal by virtue Of the waiver
Of counsel, to resume It's consideration at this
stage Of the case and reverse its proceedings.
ELISHA II. ALLEN,
Chief Justice OF The Supreme Court.