The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1889-05-01
FROM M. TnOMpSON'S DIGEST
OF HAWAIIAN SUPREME
COURT DECISIONS.
SPECIAL PLEADING,

SPECIAL PLEADING.
The first section of the Act of
lS4S, to prevent special pleading,
does not apply to the vcriiication of
libcls III admiralty or bills IN equity.
Scudder ct all VS.. Weeks, l Haw.
2O7.
-. sulr AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT.
A suit cannot be instituted against
this government, without the per-
mission of the King in council.
CuthherU VS.. The Hawaiian Govern
meut, law. l5l. But see Act
"ro provide for the bringing of
suits by or against the Hawaiian
Government; !" Session Laws 1888,
ch. 81, p. 1872.
TENDER.
TO support the plea of tender,
and thereby save costs, it must ap-
pear that The tender was absolute,
and not coupled with any condi-
ton.
Money rendered with a demand
for a receipt is not a legal tender.
Hardy VS.. Angel, lIaw. i49.
No tender is necessary when it is
reasonably certain that it will he re-
fused. Johnson vs.. Tisdale, 4 Haw.
G05
TESTIMONY BY COMMISSION.
Every petition for commission
under our statute, should set forth
the names OF the witnesses; that
they are without the kingdom that
they are material; and that the
party asking for the commission,
cannot safely proceed TO trial with
out their evidence.
As Il general rule the affidavit
should set forth what the petitioner
expects to be able to prove by the
witnesses; but the Court will not re-
| Quire it to be set forth. where good
reasons are shown why it should not
he. But OH motion to grant 8
second commission, to take tht
evidence of new witnesses, the
Court will always require the party
asking for it, to state in the affidavit
what lie expects to prove by tht
witnesses named. If there are bill:
of sale, deeds, or other writings o
any kind tn be proved. they shoult
be annexed 10 the affidavit, anC
marked as they are referred to il
the nterrogatories. Fell VS.. Parke
Haw. 80.
When testimony had been takel
by u commissions. uUdcr letters rOga
,oty addressed 20 a l.. ). Distric
Court in California, it WAS received
although it did not appear that til
testimony had bren taken under
special order from the Court t
whom the letters roga.ory were sen
Post vs.. Lady Jane, Haw. 1872.
TROvER.
Trover brought by he heir again'
the relations of the widow, who die
before her dover was set off, fl
taking away and converting to the
own use personal property belon!
ing to the husbands estate: Hell
that the defendants were liable, al
t could not defend themselves by sa
ing that the property conveItt
amounted to more than the window
share of her husbands personalt
keliipelapela VS.. Panama ct al.
! Haw. 2S0.
: VENDOR OF SHIP.
A vendor of ship cannot recov
in an action for the purchase none
, until he has first rendered GOT
and sufficient bill OF sale. Macfa
lane VS.. Gilmore, ] Ihw. 43.
| VERDICT OF JURY.
When the jury take the law in
, their own hands, and tind verd
!, contrary to the law, without regal
Il ing the instructions of the Cou
II the Court will set aside such VI
D dict so often as it is returned. Lev
s. VS.. Davis, How. l4l
# vERIFICATIoN OF PLAINTIFF = Pc
- TION.
o Every civil action to be tried
l. any of The Courts of record in t
}, kingdom, shall he commenced
y petition, which shall he verified
N the oath of the plaintiff, or so
re one On his behalf, who is able,
IS his own knowledge, to swear to
p truth of the facts therein set 70,
a Morgan VS.. Manuel, Haw. 1G5.
a A veriilcation which stated t
as the party had read the plcaui
n and the ''the same is true accord
to the best of his knowledge and
all lief" is not a sufficient veriiicati
he ID.
| =