The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1897-09-24

L
OF JUDD, CD,
The " be s' S1s s
Held sns from @ d s "a and
No ss IN D s an sai~s sa
ought to 1..
denied but the amount should be jury
OPINION OF THE COURT BY WHITING. j.
The plaintiff brought his action in repevn for the recovery
of young heer and for damages for its detention The
Fifth appeal the District
Magistrate heard the case without jury and
plaintiff for the of the hee and $1,000 damages for its
detention The defendant duly excepted to the judgment
contrary the law and the evidence and the weight of the
evidence.
During trial. the plaintiff evidence proof of
damages which, the defendant objected the ground that
the heifer young 6 months old the time of the
taking by defendant that damages could have resulted the
plaintiff This objection overruled and defendant duly
excepted.
This Court has repeatedly held that the finding in jury
waived will be aside where the verdict of jury
could aside and that where the evidence conflicting
and contradictory is in most cases. it will examine the
evidence only far if there evidence support the
verdict findings of the trial judge.
conflicting The plaintiff had a calf
bern in May 1894 and in July of that year, branded it
both hind quarters with his brand Defendant had calf born
later in the year, but branded and far he
is concerned he the hefer question until he
took of the disputed animal The calf with plaintiffs
brand remained in possession of plaintiff until September 25
since. Within day of the taking by defendant the
plaintiff brought his action of epevn and the trial before the
Circuit Judge had in March Term, 1897 of the Circuit
Court Witnesses for the plaintiff identify the heifer plain
s and testify that being raised for milking and had
been handled by them in its training for milking.
Defendants witnesses identify the heer defendants but
If branded but large in and handled
for milking purposes One witness however he
defendants calf branded However the hefer in question:
the evidence shows bore only the brands of the plaintiff which
of long standing.
There many other contradictions, and it question
O. a
animation of the evidence that there evidence sufficient
sustain the finding for the plaintiff and override the
ception
Upon exception appears the of the
taking September 25 1895 the hefer sixteen months
DID, and at the trial March, 1897 two ten months
DID, and the defendant did the heifer into the posses
sion of the plaintiff after action brought but deprived the plain
the defendant and depriva
ton of It's by defendant the plaintiff entitled damages
and entitled prove such damages and offer evidence
thereon and he entitled damages from the time of taking
the trial Damages incident to the recovery of the
object in repevin the heier had been surrendered the
plaintiff the time of the action being brought then only
nominal damages could have been awarded but by his keeping
the plaintiff out of to the trial. the plaintiff
entitled to substantial damages.
The evidence of plaintiff and his witnesses place such damage
$4,000 but this exaggerated and award for that amount
would be unwarranted The plaintiff being entitled
than nominal damages the province of the trial judge
this of jury in other estimate such damage
all the evidence and of the and cannot
that the trial judge erred awarding damages at $1,000
No uniform rule be given for asceraning the
of compensation in of this Different of
redress may be proper for the injury suffered under diff
circumstances What will make good the loss which the
party has sustained owing the situation in which the party
placed when the injury inflicted the material question
In determining this all relative circumstances ought to be
fully considered" Wells Replevn, Sec. $50. Damages
which be accurately measured should not for that
be denied but the should be left to the jury Gilbert
Kennedy % Mich III; 12S Wells Replevin Sec $50
Exceptions Overruled
Thawston d Stanley for plaintiff.
Antone Rosa for defendant.