The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-01-23
DECISION
SUSTAINED.
The Appeal is Ordered
Dismissed.
NOT OWNER OF CATTLE.
Nellie Sect Unable to Collect Dam
ages Frem ]. N. kahaIie,
Says Court.

Inc appeal in the case of Nettie l..
scout versus j.. K. Natalie for a new
tflaA IN the action for trespass, sub
mltted 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.
| folloWlng is the opinion of the court
rendered in the decision given yester-
day:
ms Is an action at law, instituted in
lhe Distrlct Court of North Kona Ha-
wan, wherein the plaintiff claims of the
defendant the sum of one hundred and
nIty dollars as damages for trespass al
lleged 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, 1893.
Inc Dastrlct Magistrate rendered judg-
ment for the defendant, from which
Judgment plaintiff appealed to the Cir
cult Judge OF the Third Circuit, at cham
perS Inc 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
sAiS JoOSAciI anu Tie ueClSlOn 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 ap-
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 sin
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 it 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, Haw. 1863
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
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 ii. 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, 1881
It Is with this finding that fault is
found the contention Of counsel for the
appellant being that there is no evidence
to support it.
PLAINTIFFS title to the land was admit
ted, nor was 1t 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 Kahaluu. Although there
ives ether evidence as we'll 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
tions of the credibility of the witnesses
and of the weight of their evidence were
for the trial court to pass upon, and it
accepted the defendants statement above
mentioned. No further trial on the facts
can be had. The appeal is dismissed.