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

Tbs IS hsl ia equity 20 have a decd u Goa
veyabrc 6s,ei Neteaees le,h.iS6S made By iee
plsiuud 10 John Il lOt toe lRsi caled kslua-
paiu ia X aihi O4ha, delivered an tor eADcrlla-
li0a. on The gu1aRi that u vas uasae un.ieS q
mistake a. 10 is eject and nature, The defend,
ants pesaea "a tar By Uay Il cslcpfsl gheie.lou,
inc iaci thar 10 . san by kahoiWsi and Others,
~ rsakuku his defendant and c,herSs the SID
raakuGu 10 Der sVOyn Spswe, hie5 heceuleeg s'a
ISL, saws. that - shc did 90 thc lO;A day 81 No,
vcuber A. n.lS69. seltspd coavey 70 o0~ JeAa ~
81 her right, Jiac and iateVst, "a The said l.ia'ua
q kaiaapals Ia kalhi aiorcsaid ior The eonsiaers
ton 10 he said oaa 81 complaint set forth -
Also. she Is not rcQaired % ansvcr iuy,her Is
rcSaris he lasiv 4 alnpa,a iuaspocA a. b TIE
tlect ~ her ssid oonvcyunce u The said Jobu Il
sAc has 90 further interest "a the premises, and
iariber. apop iul ard equi,shle examination
q The chzrccs % the SAID bii 81 compliant The
deed IL canNeyance Usa3e ard eNecn,ci By TOE
dcieujant q Joaa Il shsCld not be declared
void,
The uuestiou presented is this; are the facts
aud sduissions u a swuro answer IN cQE'iy eo0-
elusive against ,ae party asserting sad Hak'Gs
thtms
Ii Great Britain the rnle formerly obtained
that b.l 10 chancety could rot be received As
evidence IN = Court q law, % prove aoy facts
either alleged or dcrici 10 such bi % The groUnd
ibst the Avegmsh,s we're g a gTe~i extent he
sucreS;ious u counsel ss-rC,,.
Doe vs.. Sypo1ra, > pegejcrd 5, Eas, ,. 10
Boiieaa IS Raiiia ikea 66A This rule was
mOil6ei somewhat; that pieahRgs 10 eq0l,y As
Uer as az common law are not % Re treated s.
positive allegations ef the trvth oftAe fscls there
10. tos al Proposes but ouly Is statements az The
care Of the party. 70 be admiitcd o. dene3 by The
opposite side and Il denied iosbe proved ana ylo-
mS,ely submitted ior icticiSl decision.
Ia eo1r,s oleQui,y. iAe ell nay be read as
eviisaee for * d.FsEail.;, q any otihe matters
therein directly zni positgveiy avegred. For II
is c part q that reeord upon the Whale Of which
The decree Is % be made and whether he ale
CATION be true OF MOI, Is imms,eral they being
pa iorih as tue and otthe nature Of i0dicla I'D
missions To- the purposes q that particular trial
5 Greenlsaf Ev. 275s
The answer q the defendant. being delib-
crate statement on cath. i evidence sgsinsi him
Of az The matters il contains, and is extremely
strong. Jhoagh not - entirely eoOeissvie =s 70
preolade HIN IRON showing that 1t was INSIDE ua-
der 81 iaaoceat mistake : Gassnleat : 80.
The above QUo;2lious lsy down tie laW cor
reeJiy IS % he effect q bid and answer between
tie parties 10 . particular case
81; the matter set 60 u The plea in bar il
defeudzu, IN he suit Of kahoiESi and Others ::
tbe defendants ID this case must be treated IS
strangers 10 the former suit.
/ sgziu Qco,e from GreenleAf vol, So :.
i record usy also De- admitted in evidence 10
favor OF stranger sgaiGst one of the parties. as
containing seieno admission 81 jodioial 0eclsra-
tioa BY such psriy in segSui 10 certain fact.
Bot 10 that case il Is admitted net as = jo6gusn,
conclusively establishing the fact. bu; The de-
Ebe5Sie declaration Or admission Of The psTty h;ul
self that the faci E2s So Il Is therefore 10 Dc
irestsi aecor5iug TO The prlEeiPleS governing ed
missions 10 which cas- Of sTldeBee 1t PNpeEi!
belongs.
Il the cAse o; Parsons rs. Copeland, IS Maine
SO Il EGs bed that the record 81 s suit IN shieh
s plaintiff has recovered Judgment, cannot Dc
Used sgainSi hin IS an eStopPel 10 S subsequent
suit between hin and person who was not .
party OF privy to The first suit, bat allegations Of
5 former suit, IN sbIch the present defendant had
recorerei Judgment IS plaintiff, msy Be used IS
sviiscce of his admissions. sitbough the present
plaintiff Eas neither party cor priyy 70 the suit
See also Beatty Is. Randall 5 Allec al. The
prueIps upoa Which thls rests Is that parties and
Prviss only (aOi S.rsDgers) are bound BY estop-
psls. which mast be mutual 0ctr7m vs.. More
Eooi. ; E4st- S46- Greenle2Fs Evidence :. 2O4-
He4rue IS. Rogers 3 D. and c So.
TIE answer q Psskaku IS admissible IS evidence
against Der, bui il cannot be regarded IS eoHelg-
sive sgsiasi her uata i be shown ;bzi her zd-
missions hsve been acted upon BY others.
A. FEkNCIS JCDD.
Justice oithe Supreme CO1rt.
Pies orsrTu!ei. A :. HarsEe., tOs pL-iasiss.
5. B. Dole for ddieodsDis.
HoalT1, March 9Th 1875