The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1903-11-26
H. v. FLINT
LOSES CASE
Ills Appeal From Refusal
of Divorce Is Not
Sustained.

Harry W. Flint has lost his appeal
from the refusal of the Circuit Court
to grant him a divorce against his
wife. Justice Galbraith is author of
a unanimous opinion of the Supreme
Court to that effect, on exceptions
of libellant in the divorce suit of Har-
ry w. Flint VS.. Nina I. Flint. Lorrin
Andrews for Iibellant; John w. Cath
cart for libellee. The syllabus and
THE SYLLABUS
An exception to a decision of
Circuit Court in divorce suit on the
ground that it is contrary to law and
the evidence and the weight of the
evidence, is not well taken. when the
decision is supported by the evidence.
It is not error for a trial court to
sustain an objection to a question on
cross-examination on the ground that
it is incompetent, irrelevant and i'm
material" if the evidence is incompe-
tent for any purpose.
OPINION OF THE COURT.
| This is an action for divorce on the
| statutory grounds of cruelty and ha-
| bitual intemperance. The. Circuit
| Court found that the evidence was
quite conflicting and that the libel
| liant had failed to make out his case
| and dismissed the bill. An exception
was saved to the decision of the Cir
cult Court as well as to other rulings
in sustaining general objections to
| certain questions propounded to wit
| nesSes.
| 1t is insisted on behelf of the libel
liant that the decision of the Circuit
| Court dismissing the bill was con
trary to law and the evidence and the
| weight of the evidence" and also that
it was error for the judge to sustain
the general objection of incompetent
irrelevant and immaterial'
The libellant does not contend that
the charge of cruelty was sustained
but does insist that the charge of ha-
bitual intemperance was established by
the evidence.
No useful purpose would be served
by setting out the evidence in detail
1t is sufficient to state on this branch
of the case that the evidence intro
duced on behalf of the libellant tend
ed to prove the charge and if it had
| not been contradicted possibly would
have been sufficient to sustain it, and
that there was testimony produced by
the libellee that tended to show that
the charge was false. Under our
statute a decision in divorce case is
like the verdict of a jury in that il
cannot be. set aside or reversed il
there is sufficient evidence to support
it" Bartlett VS.. Bartlett, Is Haw. 707
713. An examination of the transcript
was justified in finding that the evil
dence was "quite conflicting The
/ decision resulting from this finding
cannot under the law be disturbed or
the ground set out in this exception
The exceptions to the rulings on OBJ
jections to testimony are all of the
same character and are based on the
same ground, namely, that the court
erred in sustaining objections to ties.
timony on the ground that it was Gin.
competent, irrelevant and immaterial.'
The court has the power to exclude
incompetent evidence of its own mo.
ton without objection Il Jones, Evi
dence, Sec. 1853; 8 id. Sec. 1861; and a:
a matter of course can exclude it wher
| objection is made although the form
of the objection may be general. 1
is possible that the court considered
the evidence excluded as inmateria
for any purpose. If the ruling wa:
on that ground we find no error in it
If the objections had not been sus
tanned the rulings possibly would no
have availed the libellee on exception.
for the reason that the objection wa!
too general. Railway Company VS.
Parker, "a Ind. 81; Schlereth VS.. Rail
way Company, rs Mo. 81, 103 N,
authorities have been cited that sus
tain the contention of the libellant OF
this point and we think it unsound
There is another reason why thes
exceptions cannot be sustained. TIL
law is we'll settled in this jurisdiction
that the manner of the introduction
of testimony and the latitude to b.
allowed counsel particularly on TIL
discrimination of witnesses il
largely vested in the discretion of tn
trial court and that this discretion will
not be reviewed by the appellate cour
except in clear cases of abuse. Bootl
VS.. Beckley, II Haw. 521 Merricour
VS.. ms. Company, 13 Haw. 221.- TIL,
record in this case not only fails t,
show any abuse of discretion blu
proves that the trial court allowed I,
counsel reasonable latitude in thu
cross-eXamination.
The exceptions are overruled.