The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1902-06-26

NEW RULES
District Courts
Power Set
Out.
SUPREME COURT
GIVES DECISION
Constitutional Questions Raised
Before a Mssistrate-Claims
May Be Split.

An important decision defining the
powers and limitations OF the District
Courts OF Hawaii was handed down
yesterday by the Supreme Court In the
ease Of Levers 4 Cooke vs.. J. w. Red
house. Decisions were also given on
two former appeals from Judge Dickey
which also throw considerable enigght-
enment upon The jurisdiction OF dis
triet magistrates In civil c.lses.
A constitutional question was raised
in the ease OF Levers & Cooke ~. Red
house. namely. that the constitution
conferred the right OF jury trial In
suits involving amounts over twenty
dollars. The Supreme Court holds that
permission 10 appeal to Circuit Court
Is n SUFFICIENT compliance with this pro-
vision. The Judgment Is reversed be-
cause the magistrate did not have ju-
risdietion in amounts OF over $500. The
syllabus IN the case which sets out
many new points OF interest Is as fol-
lows
The provision OF the Federal Consti-
tuition comforting the right OF trial by
jury In suits At common lew where the
value In controversy exceeds $50. Is
sufficiently complied with In cases with
in the Jurisdiction IS District Magis-
frntes under our statutes IL n trial by
jury Is allowed on appeal IN the Circuit
Court
An entire claim cannot be split for
the purpose Of bringing separate action
on the different parts within the juris
diction OF an inferior court.
The amount for which Judgment Is
asked and not the amount due deter
mines whether the case Is within the
Jurisdiction Of the court
a portion Of an entire claim may be
waived for the purpose OF bringing ac-
ton on the balance within the Jurisdic
ton OF an inferior court.
An ordinary continuous running book
account Is such an entire claim as can
ing several actions on the different
parts.
II action IL brought on a part only
OF an entire claim, the rest VIII be
deemed 60 be waived
N action is brought on n part Of an
entire claim. the part being within and
the whole beyond the jurisdiction OF
the court. result viii be. not that the
court VIII not nave Jurisdiction. but
that the judgment VIII bar further &C
ton on the balance OF the claim.
Scmbic. that attorneys commissions
and costs allowed by statute. though
prayed for. should not be included in I
determining whether the amount sued I
for - within the Jurisdiction 81 the
court. but
Interest. whether allowed by the I
terms OF the contract or by law as
damages for the detention OF money.
should be included ~ prayed Tor.
While interest may be waived either ,
expressly or By omission to pray for IL. 1
80 as 90 bring n case within the turis-
dictiOn Of an inferior court. or. II not I
prayed for may D.. RENTED In case |
the Judgment includes ~. yet. " pray 4
ell for ana allowed IN the judgment. the
error cannot be cured by remitting the
amount since the court never acquired .
juFisdicfiC1 over the case and its tudg- .
ineut - absolutely void
The question OF want OF jurisdiction ,
may o. raised In this court although /
the record Of the lower court does not
show that ~ was raised there except
in the notice OF appeal fled after tudg-
Inent was rendered.
The Levers & Cooke decision Is fol-
loved In the case OF NJ. Phillips & Co.
W.. Lun Chung co. and J. II Fisher.
garnishee. The opinion Is written by :
Chief Justice Frear and the judgment
- affirmed excepting as TO the gar
nishee. The court holds that When
m appear Dond ~ Inaue out 10 hhe
court instead OF TO the clerk the rem
cdy is not To dismiss the appeal but
order an amendment TO the bond"
Following out the decision as To split
Ting OF claims. the court says: When
n claim Is split for such purpose. the
proper course Is TO show In the second
action that the claim has been adjudi-
Gated in the first action. and not TO
object 10 the Jurisdiction OF the court
On the ground that the claim sued on
Is only a part OF a larger claim. ire
spective OF whether the balance has
been adjudicated or sued on
Judgment Is sustained as 10 the prin-
,ipal but reversed also as 10 the gar
nishee in the case of c. Ming Hymn vs.
Young Tong and ]. n. Fisher. gar
lIshee. The court holds that "A debt
owing TO the partnership cannot be
in an action against one OF
he partners