The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1894-02-13
OPINION OF The COUNT BY JUDD. {. )

NEG-N-A.N ~ Y u ~ ? A'Aas -
This i 81 seton OF sssunpsit for
dsmsgaS for breach Of promise to
marry. Il was tried So the last Dec
ember Term Of the Circuit Court
Second Circuit held st Lshsins.
Msui. The dsmsges lsid were five
Thousand dollars Process was ser
we'd upon the defendant Msy 18Th.
1928. On the 18Th Nov. the plsiutif
moved for 81 order declaring defend
sut in Gsfsult. upon the clerks eertI-
fcste thst defendant hsd failed TO
snswer within twenty days after ser
vice Detsult Ess ordered OF the
9ih Dec st term snd the same dsy.
the Court, on motion by defendant to
vscsts the order CT default supported
by sfSGsyits. SET aside the defs1lt
sud SLOWED defendant 10 answer
The sEdsvits sra II substance thss
defendant snd kis counsel depose
thsi sn snswer vss prepared within
S few dsys sitter service, II Honolulu.
srd they verify believe that IL wss
usilsd TO the c.a-k OF the Court" ST
Waikiki Msui- An exception was
taken 70 the granting Of this motion.
which : embodied n the plaintiff :
bill Of exceptions The aiidzTits do
do not nee; the requirements OF the
lsw IN such uz.5a-s. II the answer
hsi been sent 70 81 attorney o other
person az Wailuku 10 be by him per
s0uzuy fled With the clerk. o. II sent;
10 the CLERK by registered letter. O. II
Letter had been separately usilei.
sskirE the clerk 10 scknovleiEa re
esips Of the snswer il would show
the exercise OF reasonable diligence
II this course had been followed the
loss q uiscsrTisSs Of the scsvE
you'd hsTe been inside known 10 de-
:srdsnt's counsel II tine 10 have
rec.lEad the matter In the case BE-
fire u there : the unsupported
statement lhsi defendants counsel
--vs-ily believe thst TIE srsET was
sent By uAil 70 the clerk This falls
tzr sh1-t Of deposition ihst counsel
had ua2ei il personally
The affidavit 10 sei aside deis1li
nus. slsts that 8 default has been
taken show reasonable diligence.
must So to-Ih facts showing g00d
defense and r0t Ue-s conclusion q
lsE: Sho1ld also safe the tsc-s relied
uuo1 n such notion. 50 thai ibs
Court usy judge q the question q
us-1ts- s. ) E1cyel- Law. pp- 4l6
zI6 & Il and cases there cited
Ire aE1sTits bs:1-a u Do ut
SkoE that Ire answer was actually
s=cI - t1s c-s-E q reasonable dill
seccz II zsce-tslring fit had rssctad
TIE cls-k- @ scy eIc1se By nay Of
Mistake q accident Why. II sent. Il
hzd ~ been received BY tns eek
Tie aEizvl-s grs also insufficient II
cus disclosing TIE facts relied 1pon
II 5steccs- Il = rot sufficient 20
s.sre that -ds;scdzrt hzs eooi and
usrfio-;1-s 6stscs== -i.h01l setting
CIT =hz. II : 80 ttg. TIE C1a-s car
jadse rteste- j; : Us1:o-io1s-
POEe- : given 20 t6e Judge q
Cs1rs 10 ope1 : de:suls II thsir dis
C=----- TX El-& 1-4 ---A---
rszs1cs- Sac 1la6 Civil Cods- We
Do rCt den the rezs1us II this cae
70 o Eco6 and s5ssuL Beng II
is:s1li TIE sszf1tz. Sec 1lZI CITl
Code directs TIE clzrk = 70 eutE- the
cz-sz uo5a TIE calendar % zssass-
ue-.s 10 Dc uzds = rEs< 81 the
ten Jpn the suls s1d1csIoo q
uIErsiE's sTiis--s- without admit
ting tn izfzoizut 20 rsbat The
sz2==-oaIy suo=ing ds:sodz1t 70
c-uss eB1I1= plaintiffs illnesses
and 70 z33r=s ths !C! Z 1ilgssio1
q izzzssz- B1t the G=:zal. ~&
CCe-a1 z-5 c=:=aiz-: II n tss1-
uC1E n dsts--s which IA! bzEs il
s1szesi tas Tzr31Ct We sEslu
this s1osp1o-- 5=@@cg ths ro-
sEzs-t Jpn =1ico u or5=r re=
r5zE % t1zs the case ZsF L p-Oesed-
Il =7sE- WITH 5=t=ciszs IN d=ts7ls-
We rsoz-S hzrs thzz tbs Co1-1- upo1
uIzfrT-s 6scz1i- Sad have
= :