The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1892-03-10
OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUDD, C. ].

OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUDD, C. ].
This action was brought upon a
judgment obtained by plaintiff
against defendant in the City OF
New York on the 18th October,
1870; jury was waived and the
case was heard by Mr.. Justice Dole
who rendered judgment for the
amount of the New York judgment
and interest from it's date at six per
cent. per annum. The bill of ex-
ceptions by defendant is as fol-
lows
II. Defendant requests the Court
to find as a matter of law that no
sufficient service was made upon
the defendant to support the judg-
ment sued upon.
so. Defendant requests the Court
to find that no interest can be al
lowed upon the judgment, because
it has not been proved that the
laws of the State of New York al
low interest to be charged upon a
judgment, nor what rate of interest,
if any, is there allowed.
CATER close of the evidence and
argument of counsel, plaintiffs
counsel offered witness to prove
the laws of the State Of New York,
and the evidence was received. De-
PENDANT excepted to the re-opening
of the case and to the introduction
of new evidence upon the laws OF
New York in regard to interest, and
the exception was allowed.
"The defendant now excerpts to
the failure of the presiding Justice
to find as requested and to his ac-
ton in receiving further testimony
: after the close Of the case"
The first point made by the ex-
ception, that sufficient service was
not made upon the defendant in
the original case, was not pressed
at the argument, and we think it
was rightly held by the trial JUS
tice that the exemplifed copy OF
U1I0 Juugr nrnU slIUwou that service
had been made on the defendant
and a judgment based on such SER
vice is prima facie good, and the
burden is on the defendant to show
that it was irregular.
The declaration averred that by
the Statutes of the State of New
York there is now due on the
judgment interest at the rate o.
six per cent. per annum. The
plaintiff introduced no evidence as
to the law of New York on interest
on judgments, or the rate of inter
est. At the argument defendant
asked the Court to find that no in
terest could be allowed because nc
such proof had been offered.
After the close of the argument
the plaintiffs counsel asked per
mission to put in such evidence
which was allowed by the Court
against the objection of the defend
ant.
We find the authorities unanim
Gus that it is within the discretion
of the Court to reopen case at tn,
request of party, for the purpos'
of allowing him to introduce ad
ditional evidence.
In Commonwealth VS.. Ricketson
5 Met, 412, it was held that wher
ajury, after a cause was committed
to them and they have gone out
return and make an inquiry of tn
Court as to a fact, it is within tn
discretionary power Of the Court t.
admit testimony respecting tn
matter of such inquiry.
In Hathaway VS.. Evans, 10
Mass, 267, after both parties ha,
closed, the defendant stated tina
he had just learned of a certain
plan relating to the boundaries i
dispute which was in plaintiff
possession, and called upon then
to produce it, and upon its produc
ton offered it in evidence; but tn
plaintiff objected to its admission
at this stage and the judge ex
cluded it. The appellate Coul
said "the admission or rejection c
the plan at the time when it wa
offered was a matter wholly With
the discretion of the presiding judg
and is not subject to the revisio
of this Court"
In Commonwealth VS.. Blair, IL
Mass, 42, it was held that admis
sion of evidence after defendan
had closed his case was matter {
judicial discretion, and not a sui
ject of exception.
In Williams vs. Hays, 20 N. Y
go, the Court held that "the recei,
ing of further proof after the cas-
was closed was not then a matte
of strict legal right on the part
the party offering it; its admissio
rested primarily in the discretio
of the referee. This Court came
review the exercise of the discr,
ton of the original tribunal"
So also Caldwell VS.. n. J. Steam
boat Co., AZ N. Y, 295; Owen v
O'Reilly, 20 Mo-, SOB, goes furtht
than is necessary in this case. TIL