The Hawaiian gazette., 1882-05-10
The Supreme Court.


A communication in the GAzr-rrr Iast week unter
the above title Suggests that many general rules
Of las can b. codihod with advantage. An exam
nation Of the CASES decided m the Supreme Court
ought 10 satisfy any one Of the truth Of that suo
gesii1u To Illustrate much litigation has arisen.
he-e as vel as elsewhere, upon the proper rule in
actions against common carriers for negligence
~ &c The burden Of proof Must the r,lantiF sbc,r
more than the -eceiviuC and uou-teliyerv Df tl,a
uusls " must he show something TO indicate nee
licence Of tie carrier This question the Co11t
held by one Judge has apparently decided IL both
eAts- alq nIlallF came out with a decision Ike
that u Ar- IoOts namely. that il is mot ~ fLo
slightest oqnsequence- Aoclebrated case OF eject
rneut vas IN the Court not many years a,,o. in
which The plaintiff claimed TO be entitled 10 tbe
possess,a1 q q valuable plantation The Conr+
EsFe lud-uifut for the defendants but a kind AZ
c1llIru1llse vas effected On the assuuptior thst
ne p-ainiih and his grantors had been for over
tseiliy ye-lrs IN fusscssisli- No Judgment either
30 put hIIn ~ not 10 PIT him into r.1SssSsio-1
"a f-lllfed tof that : the only object and result
o an io.l1l u- slecilIent- Lately good deal of
argument has been heard IN another acton ~
electrnent, IN which the plaintiff hai never -, =
possessiou. bet the defendants who -i,;,-,S = - =.
hee refused e slTe up the Possession 10 TIE nls5r
AZ i.ls-steS tnAt The case should have been nor,
sllied On the ground tha: the plaintiff hai fs;il
- slnE that they were in Tossessiorl IN, Js-s.,S
Statute cccerrin actions Of ejecsTnent If er,ars5
here wuul1 save such Inconsistencies and -.
J. u,ore would same much expense The Fn~i;sL
Common Law Procedure Act. and more rs-Ss,-tI
their Supreme Court Of Procedure Act furnish -
arpics Of reducing to certainty and sir,niirit,
many important matters OF Law and practice
Enclish and American Bankruptcy statute oo,
tain provision IS 10 the effect Of evidence in
certzin cases OF adjudication Of bankruptcy
Ozr bankruptcy Act Is silent the subject. The
Suprene Court held al its last term that such an
adjudicatioais conclnsive, and cannot be enquired
into n an action u repeyin by clEsz-snt Of the
coods seized BY thu Marshal under procEeding in
bankruptcy. In another case brought by assignees
II bankruptcy. at tie same fer- the plaintiff took
non-s1if OF the ground that an adjudication Of
bankruptcy was ssot admitted to be conclusive
l1e result v1s second trial, duplicating lauyer's
retalners- uilness ICES and expenses, costs of
Sq1rt- ana tne uslAi annoy yance Of trizi. Agood
t1irg Tor lawyers TO Be sure; but few words add
ed % ne statute would have allowed no urcer-
tasnrY n the matter resent insurance case cs4
abouf fifteen hundred dollars, for lawyers and
1ury1nen- 10 ssttle that claimant for life i,,s-
nnce cannot recoTer If the insured Is sfov-1 -
have bad any --sehous disease when be ar,1i;e.i
for his policy ana warranted that he had M s,h
disszse A statute requiring that IN an action -
coutrzct the plai1tif must aver that all condtior
areoeleuf on his part contained IN the contract
s1ed upon had been performed, might have aroidei
a1lt outlay.
By zn means tken let rs have q steady. althouoh
sluficus and carefully considered. sftent TO coifv
BE main r1ies Of law Litigation viii not there
y cu-ses ouf i Kay Be bro1ght into narrower
ltniis