The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-11-19

mtted do the court to saw or assume that no
such evidence be adduced adduced it will not
suffice convince the that original finding of fraud
However strong evidence already introduced
may be tending show fraud presumption law is
that the mind of the open convictions facts
until all of the evidence has been heard
Whether not it is practice entertain under
circumstances of this case the motion presented this
to remand the introduction of further evidence
question which has been by
for the first time suggested in the dissenting opinion We
deem the question immaera in this decision
unnecessary because the of law presented by the motion
which preserved and brought up by general APP
peal itself and may be under that appeal irrespective
of the motion In other words the specific
sa Nor has it been contended by counsel that this Court
without power remand the for the introduction of fur
Their evidence or that incorrect improper practice to hear
argument under the general appeal upon one only of the oes
tons thereby raised and to determine same before proceed
ing to consideration of the other questions presented The
power to appeal decree of Circuit Judge in cham
be and to remand for hearing either whole or in part
IS specifically conferred upon this Court by 1884 of
the Civil Laws the language of is in part In case Of
such appeal to the Supreme Court decision Judgment
order or decree of Circuit Judge in Chambers Supreme
court shall have power to review reverse affirm amend
modify remand for hearing, in chambers decision
Judgment order decree whole part and as to any
all of the parties The relief asked by the appellants
p w.t. the reversal of the decree the rmanding of the
cause for the introduction of evidence which has been
fore excluded enormously, may opinion granted
under the authority conferred by this statute
10 the objection that parties should be permitted pre-
sent their appeals by sections argue decision
but one of the questions involved the simple
the case at bar the question argued and submitted
natural order of things preliminary and requires decision be-
fore the other issues involved appeal can properly be con
sidered by this Court Moreover, this Court for
the
adopted by counsel n presenting this the preliminary
question only.
In opinion, the respondents their day in
court to the issue raised by the amendments The de-
appealed from reversed and remanded to the
Circuit Judge of the First Judicial Circuit instructions to
receive such evidence be offered under the amendments
to the peadngs and for such further proceedings consistent
with the foregoing views, as may be proper
Geo. H. Ddris, Hatch d Sitlrndn T. McCGnts Shqodrt
and Hdgoon Thompson for compliments.
Robertson Wilder for respondents Frank Husace and
John J. Egan.
Kinney, Ba1EoH d AcCSGnaham for respondent Frank n
Foster.
DISSENTING OPINION OF GALBRAITH j.
do approve of the practice recognized by the majority
of the court in this decree entered against the
respondents They appealed from that decree
to this court When the appeal perfected
placed the calendar the respondents did press appeal
on Its merits but presented motion cause to
Circuit Judge not for new hearing" but with
to allow the introduction of evidence upon the plaintiffs amend
ed bill of complaint the defendants answers and plaintiffs
replication thereto file in this cause"
1t urged in support Of the motion that
OF the pleadng presented issue; that they
dence support of this sue that the offer denied
in refusing admit the evidence offered the Judge
committed
By the motion the asked to single out this one
alleged and from the of the and
without considering the appeal whole hearing argument
the merits to do what the only authorized to do after
a full and complete hearing of the appealed.
Presumably the object of the appeal invoke the power
of this appellate tribunal of This
power prescribed in section 1894 c. l. and follows:
In Of H.