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

that court we're cited showing that an
adequate bond against damages was
exacted of an equity appellant.
Judge De Bolt read the local statute
saying an appeal might be taken from
iecrees in chambers.
Mr.. Davis said he would argue that
point What he had shown was that
these appellants had no standing in
court. as they had come into acknowl-
edging that they had accepted a settle
ment of their claims contained in the
trust deed
Judge De Bolt wanted light on the
question whether he was obliged to al
low an appeal and, in the course of a
dialogue with counsel, asked him to
explain clause in the law stating that
certain sections did not affect the right
of appeal.
Mr.. Davis said il .eferred to law ana
not equity cases and quoted a provision
that the record must show that tho
party has right to appeal.
Then the court wanted to know why
demurrer was not fled TO the answer
OF the Ellises.
Mr. Stewart said motion was filed
to strike IL out, and Mr.. Magoon that
Co-defendants could not demur
Your Honor has decided that they
nave no s'"''u'ns III u ur'' MI DaNW
81 decided that they had no interest,
Judge De Bolt responded.
""' se'',es " VT 'Da'iS soiu'
S"ppose ! l''"se W ailo" th!s APP
pear "ou'u 'he'e NO, NC n'ahuamu'
SUI. o' o"' "a" 'S' 'he couIt qu'r'eu
NJ was the 'ep's vi MI DaNis
riow co",u 'hey Irihs hahua'lus pro
eeeu'hs. mere Is not court IN the
'anu Whlch would entertain such
'h,ns'
1uuBe lie boit saiu thPt IN every
eqult! case one sue Is Ia erect ueciu'
GU 10 nave no interest
They have no standing" Mr.. DAVIS
was beginning again, when Mr.. Ma.
COON wanted word. ALLOW me, Mr.
Magoon, counsel having the floor i'm
p'o,eu' am sut''ns At n-sel''hA
~ !" III my puhslins was-my steam
'o, ., WY ne Uohelu"eu ,nlpresslVe,'
w" US e'.s u'i's'eu ~ mT' hunhph
TVs "n,'' 'is arm "a'eu gesture
W MI ""s"oh'
Mr. DAVIS proceeded TO answer will
an authority the question OF those hav
ing the right or appeal, the book say
ing mat none could appeal who had no
an interest In the matter at equity
Hawail mad absolutely no law an
there was similar omission In tn
feuerai law uhtil u was expressly nile
ny the EEarlS enactment. lie quote
TINS law frequently IN MS argument
snow where the hawaiian statute Wa
'"chlhs' MI stewart interlected re
marx Out was reDuned win the re
jo'"ue'' WIN thaI gentleman Wh
mas not hau mueh 10 say curing Tn
'''a' just ie"Ne NC 10 explain dln
CUT question lie uoes not appear !
KNOW anything aDolt orlsihal Jurisdl'
tiot anu now 'hat nc Id learning III
Ue ne wants 10 say something
According to the English CHANGER
law, Mr.. Davis proceeded, a bond {
100000 would ne required on appe,
In this case. He suggested that tn
Hawaiian Legislature should enact
copy OF the 'Evarts law, and then the
: would not have TO look to the Englis
law. To the court remark that mar
damus would lie in a proper case couI
sci assented, but said this was not
proper case-that was what he was tr!
ing to argue thea.
Judge De Bolt asked il the $3.50.
Of Summers money was net safe
court pending an appeal.
MIR. Davis said yes, but Mr.. Sumnt
was entitled to his money. lie wante
: 1t to take to Tahiti, where he require
1t for purpose OF great important
!, to him. Suppose the Oahu Railwa
; and Land Company had half millio
tied up in court, or was under an II
junction to prevent It's running train
wouldn't 1t be entitled to a bond
protect II against loss and damag,
Sumner was entitled to his money no
>, aud not when the appeal was decide
Y Judge De Bolt expressed a desire