The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1897-06-26


posing counsel contend that the motion when in the
cult Court based solely the ground that single
action could not be declared than count that
since this ground the motion properly denied
Let however that the ground relied in the Circuit
Court the that relied The
doubt improperly joined and motion compel the plaintiffs
elect upon which they would proceed proper mode
of taking advantage of the misoinder Civ Code
Penn. r. Co. /Hg II Pa $50; also heiT
Haw But the renewed the the plain
evidence and elected rely the count in tort
and the jury consider the plaintiffs
claim stated the other In opinion
the See Knigty Birch, Maue Sci 533
Tufts Mass 146; and Hancock Hay,rood, T. r.
The second exception taken the admission against de-
PENDANTS objection of Dr. Woods testimony what in his
opinion the defendant would have done with reference the
application in question: if had known of the applicants
death the passed the application The witness
testified in substance, that he medical the
defendant; he had passed number of applicants
surance this Company chow many applicants during how
many years. does appears that he had examined the app
and had decidedly recommended him first class risk;
that the Company had accepted all previous risks
mened by him with exception and that in the that
exception there was special reason appearing on the face OF
the report which led the rejection of the risk and that such
appeared in this When asked his opinion what
the Company would have done II had not learned of the
plicant DEATH the witness expressly asked his
opinion based his limited experience in connection with
Company, and in his which the effect that
opinion would have been accepted he expressly
stated that this merely his personal opinion based upon this
limited experience may be that the witness shown
be expert 1t be also that whether
he expert the opinion in question nadmssbe
the ground that the facts upon which based and which
temptation of law competent as any one else to form an
opinion upon them But assuming that it admit
the opinion and also that if this the only witness who
testified this point the defendant would have been preudiced
by such error Notwithstanding that the facts testified
of such that the opinion could have added but little if
them, still opinion the defendant
preiudiced thereby for the proved independent
Woods testimony by other witnesses whose
monv was neither objected to nor contracted by other test
muny The testimony of Mr. Collier who nquestionaby
expert the effect that applicant would undoubtedly
be accepted under the circumstances of this One of the
plaintiffs A. W. Carter also testified that Mr. Brennan, the de-
PENDANTS through whom the application in question
made told him in the of business connected with this
claim that he had doubt that the application would have been
accepted had it been received the home office the
formation of the applicants death
The third exception the admission against de-
PENDANTS objection from defendants Brennan
manager Landers The facts appear follows
Lande deposition taken in San Francisco by stipulation
Upon direct examination which conducted behalf of
the defendant he testified against plaintiffs objection based ON
the ground that the testimony was heaay that BRENNAN nad
orally explained him the of the delay Tin forwarding
the application having been entirely owing to Mr. Carriers
and Mr. Carriers request On the croexamnation
conducted behalf of the plaintiffs Lander produced without
any objection made behalf of the defendant, the letter in
which contained this clause 1.-The delays from
the oversight prevented immediate forwarding of the
application and when finally complete and correct held for
time longer for the purpose including batch of appl
cations pardonabe pride which agents take in sending in
good envelope of apps The letter part of the depo
son though contained package of exhibits not attached
deposition. At the trial the plaintiffs introduced the depo
sion whole without objection from defendants counsel
after read defendants counsel objected the intro
ductOn of the letter Let assume contended Tor the de-
PENDANT that the admissions of regard to past trans
nadmbe evidence against his principal and that
letter in question admission of this description (See
Thom Corp Sec. 1915; Nor Corp, Sec 54Oa and Shear
& Redf Neg 51) also that the plaintiffs made Landers
their own introducing the deposition evidence
Notwithstanding the fact that the examination in chief
Quoted behalf of the defendant (See Enc P q Pr $685.
6O2) also that the plaintiffs could not introduce irrelevant
incompetent evidence he letter question: to rebut other
dence (Brenhams atemen which had been introduced
by themselves whatever the rule might be the irrelevant
had introduced by the opposite party
(See Tho Trials Sec 699) STILL the deposition having
been introduced whole and plaintiffs counsel having read
part that unfavorable Them without objection and
apparently the belief that there objection the read
ing of the whole Deposition it only that they should be
allowed read the far it related to matters already
brought Granting that the letter admissible
Brenha oral adm