The Hawaiian gazette., 1877-11-14
WEDNESDAY NOVEMBER IA. 1877.
Supreme Court OF the Hawaiian Is
Innds, October Term, 1877. in
IIancO.
H. A. WIDEMANN rs. LON0AEA, ct al
Judd and McCully, u.
Opinion OF the Court by McCully, J.

CASE. -Ihe defendants nal contracted as u,
borers with tlIe o"uerS oil Aimee 'ahta'oh'
who were Messrs harris anu luemahh Mr.
Harris hfst seling MS interest 'n Tue plantation
to the plAintlil, VINO subsequently sold II with
reservation oil MS homestead ana lew acres, 10
third parties ana gave another party power oil
attorney to employ Tue iaoorers under suoslst'
ing contracts. II ne ueiehdahts refused 10 serve
the attorney Ut uuuer nun
A. ;. Hartweli Ior paihtiH
j. The Circuit Court give general Judgment
for the plalnti, out IN It's opinloa stated That IL
should only be enforced on the plantlhs land
The Defendant having orousht Tie case up pere'
this Court VIII give such Judgment Us 10 10"
and practice shai' appsitiin' Wv. oode. section
o39. fOweii on appellate L roc p o4l' go
ii. The qnestlon no" assumes t""iolH as
pect' VIZ Is not the Judgment III case o' Nott
20. Preceuent gaining LOT Ju"g'nen' 'oF
TINS piIihtiu "itnou' ,!'i'' Is W n's o"ne'sh,p
OF AhI' NOTWITHSTANDING 'ne 'eusonus % tue
Ohiei "ustice III tuat cAee anu seconu'9' ~ 'n's
case Is NOT governed ny 'hat precH"ent; WIN NOT
TINS Court nnu gooa cause 10 remove Tue h'nlla-
hon on Ihe Judgment Oh tue circuit court
(Aj lne reasons VI oPinIoI VI tne oUur'
form no part Q, Tue 'ecofu' ou' Tue Judgment nus
iotce Us res utyGH'c'i'D ia an i'Hta"e' cases.
10 hass: ~, nv ,,e ~ p ~ ga
l. Nv, " II. II a''' "a . ~ o.
ne ruiE VI ot"s us0sts Is o'seu VI iiSn's
anu on Puo'ic Poncy' u'u tn'S ease nas no essen
ylai features u.lee'nS noui Tue No'' ease'
h9n' ooiiu,' NV
III Tue No.' case, although 'lete was an ngree-
ueut W ""'h 'ot "SsiShs III ease VI s"'e VI '"e
p'auta'lon' the IeIo'u suO"s 'Ias uo saiv ""u
oeeh maui ou' o".s au ns'ee.'en n. " sen 81
tlat 'ue ciau'e ~ 'nut oontia1' '8I'" 'o' .aoo'
,oF asS'sns Is qu'te ''i,'"ate ~ was 'ue'e.
io'e UNNECESSARY ue'1, anu IA 'a'I was not
uoo'ueu !" 49, VI - " ~ 10 '"e'e
uo'S GU Wv, ""S &C. catl otl
as Nott W "''o'uey 'ot us o"n so'e use
anu "i'uou' nny coHtfo. vi Tue aTor Vi interest
iu ~ VI tue P"'' Vi -'0'' " w. .O''N e"'o''e 'oe
'oT W. aSt' ,c,...-
az. o''us t"e 'L WI "
Pv'Io' III sH|n '"oo' '' '"e O"Ief VI 'uo " S'"e'
absD Nil JovcnI cnmnnnd5 of thsm fofH Nv y
their (hisl agents and uverseers." But the deed
of sale aud the power of attorney show that the
plaintiff is directly interested in the result of the
defendants labor, and nothing shows that be has
parted with the control Of 1t. How can the
plaintiffs remedy against the defendant be affect.
ed then by his non ownership of land ?
The decision in the Mott case shows that it
would be legitimate TO agree even to work for
ones assigns. This agreement was to work for
Plantation Y,
obey the lawful orders of their agents. They
had a right to select their own agents, and did
not agree to remain landowners. The contract
is not claimed 10 be annuIletl by the sale, WHY
then Is the order to work not as legal and there.
fore enforceable now as ever? The consequences
of declaring the penal remedy lost by parting
with ownership of land have been fully argued
10 the case vs.. Kalapu
OBJ But If there were no reason for deciding
this case for the plaintiff on the ground of pre-
cedeut, in parallel case, there Is nothing re.
curing the Court in any aspect of the case TO
limit the labor TO the plaintiffs land The large
advances to The laborers, and not the change Of
overseers are the reason for refusal to labor, and
no decision should be made, unless clearly re-
uulred by law, to encourage such attempts a,
fraud.
RY TIE C0upT.
~
lhs SoGrt oeio" III g'iug Judgment say una
t ,W ue'euu"uts eau oe ne'u 10 'aoor iUr H. a
"iue''cnn' Notwithstanding he may nave dis
poseu Vi HIS interest III tue "ainee tiahtatioh
III tuis case Tue a1orer Is asheu 10 perform 'aDoi
III Tue eetNiIe vi H. "a: n'uehiahn' MS ofiglna
ehpIoSe,' 'ns' - y" us 'anu' Il" eIPoyuhen' II
Tue results ~ WINCH he Is inleles'eu'
the p'aintiu FURNISHES legitimate employment ioI
defendants 10 MS own service and complies VIII
all Tue terms oil the contract; the defendants are
uhuer tue laws OF TINS hinSdom' sun oound oy
Their agreement ana 10 peiuse Is wliul desertlol
punishable oy law.
FROM the judgment mus limited 10 be an oo
lsation 10 LABOR IN the service oil WldemanI
strictly. the defendants appeal. But the coun
sci Tor the Plaintln now comes IN and asks I'M:
court oy force OF tue decision IN Mott q 20
vs.. hanaaele' uec!ued since the Judgment oil tne
circuit court was gwen to give the palntif
Judgment ior tue services oil defendants under
aoy agents or attornies he may appoint, and IN
the service oil other parties than himself Al
though tue defendants term these proceedings
an appeal we must treat lhen as exceptions Oh
matters oil law, Tor we nave no statute provision
LOT an appeal from the circuit TO the supreme
court. In our practlce exceptions are taken VI
from the rulings oil Inc Circuit Court Ihis wa
iuhy considered IN 1 ne Ming vs. faaRanin' 81
nav. rep: p oO. AS lhe plaintin LOOK no eS
| cePtlons, how lar can he take advantage OF tn
aeiendants having excepted, TO ask Tor n bette
Judgment than he obtained IN the Court below
we are CITED to section S39 oil the Civil Code
-" hen Judgment shall have been rendered i
any case in which exceptions have been Above
the Judgment may be vacated by the toll Cour
without any writ oil error IN Ike manner as II
mao oeen entered oy mistakel and therenpo
sucn iarthef proceedings snail be mad IN tue cas-
as TO law and justice shall appertaln." Thl
provision must De IN vie" oil the context
PROVIDES generally ior the steps TO De take
"nen exceptions 10 rulings oil Justice AZ Dis
prius are sustained-as lof instance, that the vel
ulct shai De set ASIDE anu new tfai ordere'
put 1t Goes not pace Tue case before the Couf