The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1899-04-21
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE HAWAIIAN
ISLANDS.
MARCH TERM, 1892
J. A MACON u. 7. MARKS.
EXCEPTIONS FROM CIRCUIT CoURr, FIRST CIRCUIT.
SUBMITTED MARCH 81, 1899. DECIDED APRIL H. 1899
Trnn ~ FRF AR AM, Wtur1N, TT

o jury.
COURT FaEAR, j
Defendant took possession the and undertaking
business of E. A. Williams for the purpose of forecosng
chattel mortgage thereon employed conduct
the business until the sale salary of twenty-five dollars
week and at the time little later promised addi
onal hundred dollars for conducting doing his best in
conducting the funeral of the late British Commissioner A.
S. Halves Afterwards Williams sold his claim for the
hundred dollars the plaintiff who brings this
thereon He obtained judgment the district but lost
defendants appeal the and the
here his exceptions rulings of the circuit judge admitting
and refusing admit testimony and directing verdict
for the defendant.
The defenses setof and of considerations and
the questions raised by the exceptions whether the former
permissible under the peadns and if whether there
evidence to go to the jury the latter.
Under the Act 1899 these defenes
be up against the plaintiff if they could up against
his asslgnor, Williams aa.A
1. Setof. It appears plaintiffs that Williams owed
defendant about three hundred dollars
after plaintiff rested defendant offered evidence prove
claim Plaintiff objected the ground that seto had
been pleaded and that he had right know what the se
and its different items but the trial judge admitted the
evidence the ground that plaintiff had knowledge
the seof it Lad in his case and
directed verdict for defendant ground seto
fact that plaintiff had knowledge of the claim relied
seo did not avoid the necessity of defendants having pleaded
1t Defendant could not properly introduce evidence prove
seoH without having pleaded it, whether plaintiff knew
no-any than plaintiff could properly introduce
dence of claim declared because knew of it.
And the fact that it appeared in plaintiffs that
existed which might have been made subject
sufficient Seo is strictly speaking the sense
that it defeats reduces plaintiffs claim On the contrary
ADMITS plaintiffs claim and operates rather thereof
It independent claim which be subject of
separate action of setf defendant chooses he
chooses the latter he plead much as
he would If he tc pursue the former The
claims parts of mutual account only of
which is DUE See Ppiilani Houghtailing D. 100 ante
Boyd .. Kaikainahaole 10 Haw.
q Consideration The trial judge apparently of the
opinion that there evidence upon which the question of
consideration should the jury if
established Having held that his ruling regard the
off becomes necessary consider the other
question: and agree with the trial judge that there evil
dence which the question go
the jury. The general rule that promise pay
the doing OF what the promsee already under obligation
to the promsor to do grauiy If defendant had
gagged Williams to conduct the business for twenty five dollars
week and afterwards promised give him
additional for conducting particular which
already obliged to conduct under first agreement and Will
Hams should conduct the funeral there would be consider
alton for the promise because Williams have done nothing
beyond what he already bound do defendant
gagged Williams in the first place for twenty-five dollars
and hundred dollars sesdes the would be different
Williams testies to the effect that the promises to pay the
twenty five dollars week and the hundred dollars were made
at the time really different parts of one contract
while Marks teste that the promise pay hundred
dollars made after he had engaged Williams twenty-five
dollars and that in the present The
question should have to the Again. supposing
promise in question have been made afterwards there is
doubt to what it made for-whether merely