The Hawaiian gazette., 1901-01-25
THE DECISION
Is SUSTAINED

The appeal in the case of Nettie l..
Scott versus ]. X Nahalie for a new
trial in the action for trespass, sub
mitted to the Supreme Court on Janu-
airy Z, has been dismissed on the
ground that there was evidence to sup
port the finding of fact that defendant
was not the owner of the trespassing
cattle at the time of the trespass.
! Following is the opinion of the court
rendered in the decision given yester-
day:
! This is an action at law, instituted in
the District Court of North Kona, Ha-
wall wherein the plaintiff claims of the
defendant the sum of one hundred and
fifty dollars as damages for trespass al
legged to have been committed by cattle
belonging to defendant on certain lands
of the plaintiff at Holualoa in said North
kona, from the first day of June, 1892
to the twenty-fourth day of April, 1898
The District Magistrate rendered judg-
ment for the defendant from which
judgment plaintiff appealed to the Cir
cult Judge of the Third Circuit, at cham
bers. The latter court also found for
the defendant. Plaintiffs appeal to this
court is from the judgment entered in
said action to the Supreme Court of the
Republic of Hawaii on the grounds that
the judgment and the decision on which
said judgment is based, are contrary to
the law, contrary to the evidence, and
contrary to the weight of the evidence
Under chapter 109 of the Laws of
1892, Appeals shall be allowed from all
decisions, judgments, orders or DEGREES
of Circuit Judges in chambers to the Su-
preme Court except in certain cases of
which that at bar is not one. Act A of
the Laws of 1898, which permits an APP
peal from the decision of any District
Magistrate, in any case, civil or criminal
to the Circuit Judge of the same circuit.
at chambers, provides, however, that in
all such cases so appealed no other or
further appeal on any question of fact
shall be allowed 1t is plain, therefore,
that in the case at bar the appeal to this
court can be solely on questions of law.
Whether or not 1t is necessary that the
points of law on which a ruling Is de-
sired should be set forth in such an ap-
peal (see Castle VS.. Bowler, s Haw. 1860
need not be now determined, for, as
Stunning that that Is an essential the no
tice of appeal in this case is not defect
i've. The point of law is stated, to wit,
whether or not there is any evidence to
support the decision of the trial court.
J THE gist of the decision filed by the
Circuit Judge is contained in the words,
The defendant has convinced the court
that he was not the owner of those cat
tie q. e., the cattle which committed the
trespass complained of during the time
alleged, from the first day of June, 1892,
to the twenty-fourth day of April, 1893.
1t is with this finding that fault is
found. the contention of counsel for the
appellant being that there is no evidence
to support 1t.
+ plaintiffs title to the land was admit
ted, nor was it disputed that some cattle
had trespassed on her land; but on the
question of whether or not any of said
cattle belonged to the defendant during
the period named in the declaration.
there was evidence on both sides-evi-
dence that was highly contradictory. De-
PENDANT gave positive testimony that
during the period stated he did not own
any OF the cattle that were running on
the land in question, and that during
that time all of the cattle which he did
own were at Bahaluu. Although there
was other evidence as well as of the de-
PENDANT himself as of other witnesses
which might tend to throw discredit on
his testimony first above referred to, he
decision cannot be set aside The CUES
lions OF the credibility OF the witnesses
and of the weight OF their evidence were
for the trial court to pass upon, and II
accepted the defendants statement above
mentioned. No further trial on the facts
can be had. The appeal is dismissed.