The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1892-03-12

Rule 4 of the Supreme Court, modi-
fes the statute by reducing the
bond to fifty dollars, and allowing
the notice of appeal to be made at
any time within ten days.
Rule SO, which provides for ap-
peals from the Police and District
Courts to the Supreme and Circuit
Courts, and which requires that the
certificate of appeal should state the
points of law, where the appeal is
to the court in banco, is merely a
direction to the Justice whose deci-
sion is appealed from, and does not
purport to state the requirements Of
such appeals on the part of the
appellant, which are fully given in
Section 1905 of the Civil Code, and
does not require that such certificate
shall be made within ten days from
the date of the decision rendered.
There is no requirement that
| judges at Chambers shall certify up
on the points of law in appeals on the
law, as Rule 80 requires Police and
District Justices to do.
Two of the cases referred to in
the opinion of the court, i. e., Rex
VS.. Lee Choy, Z Hawn., 81, and
Humuula Sheep Station VS.. Ahlo,
id. 2l3, refer only to the require
ments of appeals from Police and
District Courts, and neither of them
find that the certificate of appeal
must be signed within ten days
from the decision appealed from.
The other case referred to, i. e. !,
Wenner VS.. Lindsay, id. 1I9, is
silent as to any requirement that Il
certificate of appeal should be made
within ten days from the date of the
decision appealed from. And in a
later case than any of these. Along
VS.. Kale, id. $40, the court decided
after an exhaustive investigation
that in appeals from Police and Dis
trict Courts to the Supreme Court
in banco, If the points on which the
appeal is based were not made dur
ing the trial, they must be reduced
to writing and be presented to the
Justice within the ten days, but the
case contains no recognition of any
necessity that the Justice should
make his certificate within the
same time.
In the case before the court {
decision was filed July 18th, and or
the goth of July, the following
notice of appeal was filed. 1.-THE
plaintiff herein gives notice of APP
peal to the Supreme Court in Bancc
from the decision of Hon. Justice
Bickerton, sitting at intermediary
Court of the Island of Oahu, in tho
above entitled cause, on the GROUND
that the said decision is against the
law and the evidence in the sale
case" The costs accrued were pait
and security for further costs de
posted within ten days from thu
date of the decision.
Every requirement of the statute
and of the rules of court as con
dition of the appeal has been per
formed, and the appeal has thu
been perfected. The plaintiff is nov
| entitled to the certificate of thu
Judge at Chambers or of the Clerl
to that effect. The issue is def
nitely set forth in the notice of ap
peal. i. e., that the decision i
against the law and the evidence
which raises an issue of law; this
common form of exception to
verdict of jury by which an issu
of law is raised. All necessar.
statement of the issue on appea
was thus furnished to the Judg
who tried the case, and is a part o
the record, and nothing remains bu
the official certificate of appeal
which the plaintiff is not respon
sible for, and which, as has been al
ready noticed, is not required b.
any statute or rule of Court.
I am therefore of the opinion tina
the plaintiff has perfected his appes
according to the law, and is entitle
to have his case tried.
Honolulu, Feb. 26, 1892.