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

far Il the attorney. after Judgment has heeomc
6nSl by The lapse % nma Allowed for IN appeal,
can enter lnto a stifelatioo 10 raise TIE qaesions
again before an appellate Tribunal, one aay amer
Il. he eAn fas ras aid il LeRis W Glammaee.
oaol1 seovel So Il ates the lapse OF noah,
a war, or any length oC time,
10 eAirchild IS. na,en. IS Cal, $50, Il was
held tAa, L one q The evOands OF motion to die.
niss an appeal be, th4t The aprealsss eot takea
al the propeS tine. IT'S Dot waived BY the Allate
% state u in The motioa % dismiss tor Il gocs
TO the letisiie,ica II the court. Apd certainly
Il makes ~ difecaee that the iastiee frVm
whose decision this appeal ls made Is member
81 this appellate eour,. The case stands the
distinct tribunal
In Garicner We. Daley. II Gray asa. 1t was
held tia, an appeal vas bad and that the appel,
late curt bad 40 Jurisdiction, eecSaSc the appeal
vas taken outside " he liue prcsetiAci hy the
Police Coayt 81 the cay Oi Rostoa. in rules
promulgated By that court Tor its own guidance /;
thai eoaFt being authorized by s,Alale 10 make
rules Cor It's geidanee
II Is true TIA, in he Uailoraia case above n,
lefrea t0. there vas a stst0,e limiting The umS Of
appeal and the respondent cventuallg made he
metiOa, bot rules have the sane e3cet as stat.
u,es, i made IN Pursuance Of The statute, aud
courts lcok 70 their osn rcoor1s even without
theih,vrwption o. motion 81 eo1asel. Thompson
vs. Hatch Pick. SIS.
This decision Gisde ia 1927, has never Aeon
ovcsrulcd OF amended IL reads. I've consider
il 10 have bcea maa,lesIly The io,eauon OF the
TIE coart the power to establish rales upOa ,his
subject, beoause the justices would 6e better
s0le than the Legislature, 20 determine What
would be mos, 6, and convenient u The public.
(oar law IS similar 10 IL Ba, a
rule Of count thus authorized and made, has the
force q law. and Is blating upon the Court,
IS vel as upon tie parties 20 50 action, aud can
90, Be dispensed with % suit thu circumstances
q any particular case. Ia the case before ps, the
plea was allowed 10 De Sled On DE t0h day q the
term although The rule aeNs bat lour days fos thSi
purpose. The circumstances were such as would
justify that order Of the oo0rs. Il il bad poWerio
PASS Il; bRi We are satisfied. that 90 one Judge
IL he eoartOi eomnoa pleas OF OF This eoart.
las authority 10 dispense with rules deliberately
made aSd Pu1Halkaied On Areoeat u Ih0 hsri.
snip q any particular case, any more than be
would have authority 10 dispense with any reQGi-
si;ion Of the Legislature itself
The courts may Esseiud or repeal their rules.
WiihOai doab., o. in establishing them may ne
serve the exercise Of discretion for particular
cases hlA AAc RUE once hlaAC Without any SANA
Qualification, must be applied 20 81 cases which
ooae within 1t, until At Is Tepesled BY ,hs aathor
" which made il.
DisrecaraiDg therefore the form in which the
question has been presented 10 Us, seeing upon
tie record which is brought beiote asby appeal,
ths, The plea was filed contrary 10 the standing
rule Of the court, We now reiset it,
The speculate court can have no jurisdiction
because 81 the fallare Of acis in the court below
necessary 10 give the appellate court Jurisdiction;
and il il have no juriSdietsou BY torce OF Law,
then no consent Of counsel eau give it jGrisdie.
,iou.
In PoEeil's appellate proceedings page So, il
is said in erier to exercise appellate Jurisdiction,
AZ appeal should be brought within the statute
tine ,or tine prescribed BY the ruIe)
10 determining whether The attorney had pow
81 without express authority 10 assent 10 the sp-
peal perhaps the question may ariSe-Was the
decisioa Of the Justice who heard the case ioal,
or bad 1t become fuai st the date OF the alleged
sppesl-for il il Is 50. counsel hsd clearly no fur
Tier authority over il
Now decree is none the less hHal because il
may require some future order Of the Court TO
carry il ioio eject
In Mills Us. Hoag. Paige Is. the Court
quotes Chief Justice Savage IS follows:
esSary TO be entered TO give the parties full and
entire beoedt Of the judgment Of The Court
IL II Paige ls9. il IS said where decree dis
poses absolutely Of the whole subject matter OF
litigation sad leaves notbIns farther to be done in
relation thereto by the Court, it Is fnaI.
Again. TO Wallses 5S3, StoTzl IS Banks,
" the fact that execution might bsye to be taken
oai 70 obisin possession Of the land makes it no
less 6nzl.'' f@s
Again. where decree decides the right Of
property and snu5ls deeds, it Is fnal decree,
10 Curtis, 655.
Tested by al these rules, the decision made ou
the FIRST day Of September in this case vas 6nsl
decree 10 this case. subject to appeal ia accord
aRoe with section $50 IN the Civil Code, as limi-
ted by rule No. 4. Of the Court. Then on the
llth dzy Of September The decree vas not only
faal, bat ihe whole matter was absolutely at
rest.
This matter msy be tested BY very simple
supposs that the plaintiff had been madeaware
Of tue decision in Der favor on the lsi.. and hs6
on the lllh offered 20 sell her right to q third
person, who having made himself acquainted
with tie facts Of the case BY consulting the rec
ords Of The court, bought and paid for her right,
would the consent Of her counsel 10 reopen the
sase o. tie l4ih saect such purchase most GER
isi0lY not. Tie attorney had done all that be
was hired 10 DO, and more especially whsn il is
taken into consideration. that what the Court
bad ordered 10 be done, having authority so to
order, Is 10 be considered as done. Therefore it
having been decided % the first. that the deed Of
the plSintiH 70 Mr.. Ii vas void by the operation
81 Law. it became absolutely void on the llIh and
the plaintiff became reinFested Of The property on
that day. as though no such deed had ever been
made, ADD her eo9osel hsd no authority sgaIu TO
pat her title 10 jeopsrdy and most certainly mol
zithOCt her consent
Ia the matter OK Kehiah0o1iis will in This
,osrt appeal taken after Zen days bad elapsed. /
was DOT allsses. because that. BY the analogy Of
1tber statutes it WAS considered by the court
hat it could cot be allowed. though 10 rule had
.bel been made 70 supplement section $50 Of the 4
Civil Code ~
Oar conclusion Is that the jurisdiction OF the
,ouTi below terminated on the iIth Of September I
nd the Jurisdiction Of the appellate court did cot
attach 10 consequences Of nOneomformiiy With /
conditions preceds1t aBd DOE DeFer can attach. I
an agreement that az appeal may be taken and /
considered after the tine Tor taking appeal has
passed aud thus putting 70 issue the rights OF
,lient sfter they have been eo0elusivey settled By
court Of competent Jurisdiction. Is the exercise
4 20 authority which il lot implied from the re- I
atioo Of attorney and client. The court seeing /
u its own record, that the conditions Of 40 ap-
peal presented by rule 4lh had not been complied !
zitb, We arrive az the conclusion that the appeal
n thu fall rourt cannot h. allowad and the ind1-