Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1903-01-13

ed, II the appellants were acting IN
good faith they should not object to
give an adequate bond for protecting
MIR. Sumner from loss.
Mr.. Humphreys argued that the Ha-
,waiian statute must refer to equity
cases because a law case could only go
t. the appellate court on e bill of eX-
ceptions. The practice was as much a
part of the law as II It were written in
IL. Counsel referred to the contested
will case of Mary Mcpherson, in which
His Honor had appeared as an attor-
ney but did not demand bonds of coun-
sci opposed to him to show good faith.
Was this Sumner case the only one that
had gone to the Supreme Court since
1892 which involved $4,000? He sub
mitted that the court had rot jurisdiC
lion to require a supersedeas bond after
signing that decree. He felt certain
that His Honor would not allow that
siS,025 to be withdrawn from the court.
II MIR. Sumner took that money away
10 Tahiti and the Supreme Court de-
Gided that he hal not the right to 1t,
the mischief would be irremediable, He
would say frankly that they could MOI
put up a bond to cover the amount in
solyed. They were willing TO have
Sumner paid ~ per cent on account
Of the income to which he was entitled,
pending the appeal. In answer to ~
direct question from the court. Mr..
Humphreys gave the opinion that the
court had no right to require bond
Mt all. b.
He quoted a case where the bond,
where one was prescribed, was very
much less than the amount involved,
also authority for the principle that II
the law required a bond TO the amount
Of money involved II did not apply
where the money was In the custody OF
the court. He claimed that $50 foF
costs was all that the court had power
Ito require. II took two weeks to get
the evidence In this case before the
lcourt About two days were consumed
IN argument. The Judge rendered an
oral decision In twenty minutes, which
In writing had been cut down to SIX or
seven pages OF typewriting, II was ,
very able deliverance. or course Hil
: Honor was satisfied with his conclu.
his decision. At the same time His
, Honor would admit that the evidence
! was not all one way. The court must
I have decided one way or another. In
! conclusion Mr.. Humphreys said that
the argument Of Messrs. Magoon and
Peters that they should be required 10
! give a bond OF $4,000 or 100000 wa.
TOO absurd to deserve n reply.
Mr.. Davis In closing said the money
: paid TO Mr.. Sumner by his trustee was
being held up by parties who had nc
interest in the fund.
Judge De Bolt remarked that counsel
held that view because he thought the
same as the court, that Sumner was Ell
titled to his money.
Mr.. Davis asked, II II was an eXecu'
lion, would an appeal stay II. 1t waS
absurd to say that the court had n
, jurisdiction. Had It not inherent jul
, sdiction? His Honor had Jurisdiction
, the same as the Chancellor In England
who required supersededs bond. Lore
tlldon was a higher authority than eS
Judge Humphreys. The doctrine o
: equitable estoppel applied 10 remedy
, Judge De Bolt then quickly decideS
the question OF appeal. Chapter 60 o
Act 10 of the laws OF 1898 provided tina
=, an appeal should lie whenever n part!
. should file notice of appeal within tiy
', days with bond of $50 to secure costs
y He asked the clerk II the condition
!, had been fulfilled and berg answers
1, in the affirmative, said the money wa
perfectly secure IN court and the ap
= peal was allowed.