The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1882-05-10
Tho Supreme Court


A iastiau lu the q Azl1If last week under
iat ai.srl uile suzcos.s that many general rules
ID lau ca b. CsiIfod with advantage. An exam
ilatior a[ tie css decided IN the supreme Court
uuris o. slfa-iy any oue of the truth Of that sic
rlsaiou 10 Illustrate much litigation has arisen.
.-srs uuI as ELSEWHERE upon tlie prnrssr rule. in
uui-uus arsis.s o5sdiioii carriers for negligence
~ e. tlis iur3s1 af rrcof Musi the plaintiff show
nat-s tl1r a. reoivuc and non-delivery OF the
.-ss .- rrr.i L. show something 10 indicate neg
l,ro-sct ~ ti,e csrrlers Tins question the Court
tsll % inG-sl has apparently decided IN both
u1rs ulfl tuailF cHmc ust with decision like
liIas ci Mr. oai- namely that u is "noi Of the
.iriile cflnzequouot- A celebrated case Of eject
rnlrI ra.s u t1c Nour1 not many wears ago. IN
uliol si1l r1iutlh ciuitneG to le entitled 30 the
rllssIssa 1r ol q valuable plantation. The Court
~ sua-lnrni for the defendants. but a kind Of
s--Ir-ilr-IIi-t ar- feciad the assumption that
ar Tlni-llf and hls criltars had been for over
g. mi him IN not DO pu him into possession
Wa -rul-e for that b. the only Object and result
10 sr arliuI III slcctno1lt- Lately good deal Of
r--uruuas hrs t.een heard in another action Of
uiac1uaii. d winch The plaintiff had never been in
r,.szfssiuHs llf tlg dcieIIdgrts whG claimed and
hrL rulrsl BE- cIrg ur The Possession % the plain
tIf zuslsi.l ltli Tie case shuuld have been non
szlill. al. lr8uud that thu plaintiff had failed
Iu show thai thcT In possession The British
Sr1nir -1nc rIinu aciiuis of ejectrnont II enacted
il1-r rulll saTe such Inconsistencies and what
uIslla ssllt much e11le-lse- The Eugllsh
llarr-acn lza Iarocndure Act and more recently
itldf SgTrtsre cuuri of Procedure Act furnish eI-
uz.ri1s di raiucIuc 10 certainty and simplicity
rrrlls illlI,o-tlut matters of Law and practice.
Ilnrllsf and Alna-lcan Bankruptcy Statute con-
iaiu q rI7rvlsiuu 10 the efieci q evidence IN
r,lr-rir rr=sE at an adjudication Of bankruptcy
OR brnlruricv Aci II silent Oh the subject The
-rr-r1r Ci11rs he'd az is last term that such an
1.rr.iicainr cu1clusse- and cannot be enquired
inir rn ar acaul ut rCrieY1n by claimant OF the
r..nas tizrf ~ .hg Marshal under proceeding in
srr-.irrr1cr IL another csse brought ty assiCnees
- iu-tr-r- a. 1ile sEn1e term. the plaintiff took
a rruu-srf. o. t1e rrouud thai adjudication OF
1lnfii.rrslscv was Hai admitted 20 be conclusive.
IN -ui We Esc1ud trial. duplicating lawyers
r.lnsrlrs riinass feeE and expe1ses- costs Of
rlurri and li-r usual Eunuyznce q fr1ai. A good
tirr tur lnI 1rrs tc 5c sure- but few words add
VI e. the n itutt uu1ld have allowed no uncer-
trrfr - IL master. resent insurance case cost
sl,a1-l sfiuer hundrnd dollars. for lawyers and
il-ruif-i - szstle Ehzf claimant for life insur-
rrinn tl1nu recaruf IL The insured j. shown 10
i.nra ha1 zrt 'ser1uus DISEASE when be applied
g.r lis r.airT. and warranted fhai be had no such
0irrnsa = lEaluif rl.1 uiriuc that IN action of
.Irr- -f riiEirti1 anus aver thai all conditions
rnru.naian1 h1 his par c0nizined in the contract
ir rIilr i been ritffcrrned might have avoided
at.l urLar-
- - riie.-is slen iei o. have a steady although
illiass snl 1aIxiuT c1nsidered aftenlpt 70 oodify
iIl msair ru g uf Law. l1ticatiun viii not there
~ o1sae. br Il may Be hr1ncht into narrower