The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1896-07-14
OPINION OF THE COURT, BY
FREAR, ].


After the ruling of the trial court that
the garnishment must hold as against
the receiver (see decision on former
bill of exceptions in this case) the
Court "a different Judge presiding)
heard the plaintiff and garnishee, jury
having been waived, and rendered judg-
ment against the defendants and gar
nishee for S73S.29, and $73S3 interest,
and for costs. The defendants were in
default and the receiver made no fur
Their contest in the trial court. The
garnishee took various exceptions to
the final judgment and now brings
them here.
Plaintiffs counsel contends that the
garnishee could not properly take these
exceptions, for the reason that they
relate to matters which concern only
the plaintiff and the defendants, the
garnishee being interested only in the
question of the jurisdiction of the court
over the subject matter and over the
defendants, and over the question of
the amount owing by him at the time of
the garnishment. We need not consider
what the general law is in this respect
elsewhere, for our statute relating to
garnishment Comp. Laws, p. 2S0) eX-
pressly provides that the garnishee,
upon his desire shall be admitted to
defend his principal" and, although
there appears to have been no formal
request by the garnishee for permission
to defend his principals, or order by
the court granting such permission, yet
he appears to have taken, in fact, and
without objection, such steps as
amounted in effect to a defense of his
principals. and it is stated in the bill
of exceptions that the exceptions were
taken by the garnishee "for himself
and the defendants We think it must
at this stage of the case be considered
that he was acting for the defendants
under the authority of the statute, as
well as for himself.
These exceptions to the final judg,
ment will be considered in order
Among them are several similar tC
those taken to the earlier ruling anC
brought here by the receiver and the
garnishee. (See former decision.) The
garnishee took these to the final judg
ment for fear that the bill embodyins
the exceptions to the earlier ruling
might be dismissed on the ground tina
that ruling was interlocutory. Thi!
court entertained that bill of exceptions
without considering its propriety, ~
objection having been made thereto
And without now considering whethe
the earlier ruling was interlocutory o.
final, or what the proper practice is II
such cases, we may remark that tina
ruling appears to have been regarded
both by the trial judge and by the par
ties as final as to the question of pref
erence as between the receiver and thu
plaintiff. and perhaps also as to the re
ceiver's right to further appear AM
contest the validity or amount of tn
plaintiffs claim itself; at least the re
ceiver took no further part in the cas-
in the trial court, and appears to hav
relied on the first bill of exceptions en-
tirely The questions raised by thes
exceptions have already been consider
ed with the conclusion that new tria
should be had upon this phase of tn
case, and the reasons for so holdin
need not be restated here.
An exception was taken to the rem
dering of judgment in vacation, ther
being no stipulation that it might b
rendered then. The case was heard
jury waived, in term, and, although tn
prevailing rule elsewhere may be tina
in such cases the judgment must b
rendered in term, yet we understand
to be otherwise by practice in som
jurisdictions as we'll as by statute i
others. 1t certainly has been the prat
tice here for many years for courts
render in vacation judgments in case
heard, jury waived, in term. So far q
we are aware, the validity of such juds
ments has never hitherto been question
ed here, and we feel obliged to hold thu
this practice has settled the rule.
There was no error in proceedin
with the trial or in rendering judgmeI
pending the first bill of exceptions, {
in rendering judgment at the same tin
the decision was made, or in the entr
of Judgment by the clerk four day
later, no bill of exceptions having bee
presented. This course is authorize
and the rights of all parties protecte
by our practice and the provisions {
the statute. (Secs. 74-7S, Oh. 81, Law
of 1922 See also Herblay V. Norri
Haw., 121.
Exception was taken to the allowanC
of the item ''1916 days work for horse
$780, the contention being that tn
was a mistake for '191. hours work fC
horses. $3.50" 1t seems that this wor
was done at 81 day of ten hours, an
it would therefore be very easy to NAL
the mistake of copying "1915 days