The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-06-21

1904
i'af' u 'ne OIL Oh exceptions where it is sought
part OF the testimony reviewed While II MI have
to have all of the testimony before the CON- o. de
Is not necessary that all the evidence shouA \. s
every case. The statute requires that "tbo Osht
thereof as may be necessary to full unde,tonr Sa
tion' shall be presented One wishing to present
late court for review the ruling of the circu,
ton of evidence can clearly bring himself With.
embodying in his bill of exceptions sufRo;on Saa
testimony to give the appellate court clear ;do /,
and competency of the evidence offered .. a Fe
grounds of the objection and the grounds of The ,r
court II any are given 'Ihe error must be set fou,
and must appear to be prejudicia to the party
cycl. p. & F., p 409-410 and note
From the examination of the excerpts Of tbo -.
tanned in the bill of exceptions it does not annoo,
rulings complained of We're erroneous or nra;nd;.:
PENDANT The testimony objected to seems to hay. h.
petent and relevant and tending to support the i..n.
the pleadings.
The exceptions are overruled
Smith G Parsons for plaintiff.
Wise d Nickeus for defendant.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TPRp,ron.
HAWAII.
MARCH TERM 1901.
CHARLES M. LEBLOND .. SOLOMON KoNIA O..
of KUMUHONUA.
SUBSTITUTED MAhoh ~ lSol' DECIDED JUNE Is n
FREAR, CD, GALBRA1rH AND PERRy IT
who gratuitously takes to treat and maintain
cannot recover compensation therefor the ehrds c
until after notice to the guardian that further maintenance
the child will not be gratutous
The guardian properly show by way of defense aa
OF the child gratuitous He is not required
there should be no charge for the MAINTAIN
Under the circumstances new trial granted though
evidence nadmssbe had been INTRODUCED and
not stricken out
OPINION OF THE COURT BY FREAR CT
This is action by the assignee Of claim of one Ane
ani against the guardian of Kumuhonua, minor for
support maintenance, clothing and care of the minor for
years beginning January 1, 1895 The action was for sO
The jury rendered verdict for $3.50
The plaintiff introduced testimony to show that Ane Pa
lani took the minor at the time of his foserathers death
had charge of him for five years, and that she had assigned
claim to the plaintiff.
The defendant then sought to show on crossezamuda
Ane Paikaani that at the time of the death Of the te
she to his house and proposed to take the minor M
him her son and that charges whatever should 1
for such services and that she had since and on recent
told the guardian that such were the facts and that
her intention to make any charge but that she was 0
SO by her husband Such testimony ruled lnadmlSs
exception was taken.
The defendant then testified that at about the uns
foster-fathers DEATH Ane Pakaan who was defendants :
told him that she had taken the boy to raise him. lnA w
going to do for him as she would for her own chn 4
there should be no expense charge therefor tna '
she came to defendant and said she had been forced m
band to bring this suit and admitted that she had % y
charge for the keeping of the boy, and recalled Del
conversation with the defendant on the Supec" -
counsel objected to the admission Of any such 'esuu
oLonI LIDO