The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1895-10-23
OPINION OF THE COURT, BY FREAR. J.

OPINION OF THE COURT, BY FREAR, J
This i an action for sick benefits
from Novemb Der 9, 1898, TO Septembe
10, 1894, at the rate OF Sl.25 per day,
amounting to 1914 and interest there
on, which the plaintiff claims To be
PAYABLE 10 him under the 10y laws OF
the lie eudant corporation, of which
ne j. 2 member
Tue action was tried 0y the Circuit
Court, Jury waived, and Judgment
rendered for the p.aintitf The de
PENDANT brings the case here on two
alleged exceptions.
On relates To the admissibility of
the records Of "A former case a evil
dence To show the status Of the plain
tifas , member of the defendant so
cirty in good standing and entitled TO
sick benefits on November 5, 1893,
the date to- which ne recovered sick
benefits in the former action ami from
which ne claims the same IN ms ac-
ton. The statement in the bill of eX
ception- that "the learned Judge I'M
PROPERLY admitted the records in
former case l. insufficient. Not
only II 10 too vague but 10 does not
show that any objection was made at
the trial To the admission OF the EVIL
dence. or that any exception was taken
thereto or. il taken, allowed. We
may. however, add that We see 10 rea-
son why the evidence was not admis-
sible.
The other exception was taken to
the decision and the findings of law
and Of fact therein Such AN eXcep-
ton IL too general aud indefinite to- be
considered. The object of an eXcep
ton as contemplated 10y the statute
is To briug To this Court a specific
question Of law upon which the
trial court has enormously ruled
to the prejudice of the party
executing, and not To enable
party To- cast the entire case upon the
court for review. Such a loose method
Of practice is unfair To both the Oppo-
site marty and the court. See Spencer
V. Dodd, : Haw. 200, AniO V. AIau,
Haw. 20: Curry V. Porter, l25 Mass. 81;
Hartman. V. Sanger, 81 Me AZ.
But. while holding that this eXcep-
ton should he dismissed on the
ground that il Il too general, yet as
there has been some ldXIty In this
respect i'm the past, We shall III thlS
ease consider briefly the points raised
by counsel in their brief, especially as
the result will be the same
First, that the granting OF sick ben
efits in the first Instance was
irregular for the alleged rea-
son that the plaintiff had not fur
nished the required physician
certificate. The finding OF the trlal
court was one of fact, and, Ike Inc
verdict Of a jury, cannot he set ASIDE
there beips sufficient evidence % sup
nort n. Without saying whether the
bylaws made such certificate a
ur.reuuiSit.- in "A case of this kind, u
j. sufficient to say that the recOrd la
the former case was strong III not con
elusive evidence, that the grant OF SICK
ben. fits was III fact regular III the hrSt
instance.
secondly, that If the society waived
the requirement of the certificate III
the first instance. IL atterwHrd termln-
ated the waiver by its refusal To con-
tiuus the benefits and 10y it, answer
and defense In the first ease. II, a
fpuud 10 be a fact 10y the trial court,
tho ,,r.ut was regular in the nr-t IN
stance u mere refusal 10 pay cOulh
not terminate. the liability
Thirdly, that, il the p0aiutlH l. only
TEMPORARILY sick, he belongs L" TIE
class entitled To- simply mrdicaI at
tendance ami medicines and not To
the class entitled 10 Sl.23 per day,
since his illness does not wholly pre-
vent him from working This point
j. based on an erroneous EpGll-h
lrau-Iatfo 81 the bylaws, the oTigl-
mai of which IN the Portuguese Ian
vuave l. an exhibit in tie case
F0urthIy, that the Pltiuuh, II en-
iftIed 10 any benefits at all, belongs L"
The elias Of iucurahle~, ami since he
has been a member of the society less
than eight years, i entitled 10 not
more than 81 per day under the by
laws. The trial court found "a TACT
that the proper steps bad not "eeh
taken hy the society TO remove the
plaintiff from the sIck-lIst ana place
him on the incuTable list, ana TINS
finding cannot toe set aside a unsup-
ported bv the evidence.
Filthy, that the trial Court had no
jurisdiction, for the reason that the
bylaws If the society provide LOT the
adjudication Of claims 10y it, own III
buual-, and that the plaintlh - oouuu
by the bylaws. This point was not
raised in the trial court, and therefore
cannot ne considered here. But IL l.
argued that a question of jurisdiction
may be raised AT any stage OF the pro-
eeediugs. Granting, for the purpose
of argument, that this II so where the
Court is entirely without jurisdiction
of the subject matter, it does not APP
pear that the Court was without Jur-