The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1906-06-09
THE LAWS
INTRICACY
Wheels Within Wheels
in the Appellate
Court.

An argument within an argument
took place before the Supreme Court
yesterday afternoon in the case of
Godfrey, trustee, VS.. Rowland In the
Circuit Court before Judge Robinson.
after a long trial, the jury returned
verdict for the plaintiff for the whole
property in question. This verdict was
based on the legitimacy of Thomas
Metcalf, for whom Godfrey is trustee.
AT the trial the mother of Thomas
give evidence regarding the legitimacy
of two other children, Harry and
George, the objection of plaintiff being
overruled
A. G. NJ. Robertson, with whom
Thompson & Clemens are counsel for
plaintiff. was making the main argu-
ment on that side yesterday afternoon.
Saying that he desired to show the en-
tire case, he referred to the evidence
about Harry and George and said that
if the court below had committed re-
versible error, in that matter, a deci-
sion to that effect would only affect
the cotenancy of Harry and George.
Mr.. McClanahan for defendant ask
ed leave to interrupt and, this being
given, strongly objected to the inter-
lection of the question of cotenancy at
that stage. 1t was not in the bill of
exceptions, not in the briefs and not in
the complaint. The first intimation his
firm had received that the point would
be raised was when Mr.. Clemens hand
ed Mr.. Derby, on the street two days
before. a rough memorandum of au-
thorities. It was a clear surprise.
Answering questions from the bench,
Mr. McClanahan said the suit was not
for possession, but one of ejectment in
the title, and the verdict was
absolutely for the whole property. He
thirds of the property could not be
raised before the appellate court. The |
evidence was put in for the purpose |
of defeating the claim of plaintiff. and |
plaintiff could not now claim any ad-
from it. If the other side
wanted a contest on that question let
it bring proceedings relative thereto |
and the defendant would be prepared |!
to make the fight
Justice Wilder referred Mr. McClan-
ahan to a case in 3rd Hawaiian, where |
a cotenant sued for an entire property |
and judgment giving him the half in |
terest as proved was sustained Jus |
tice Hartwell remembered the case
WELL as he tried it himself.
Mr. Robertson, replying, contended |
that the whole case was under review.
Ii they were to be confined to their
briefs, where was the use of oral argu-
nent at all in the appellate court?
Chief Justice Frear, after putting
questions to counsel and consulting
with his colleagues, gave the courts
'uling that it would consider the adj
of the line of argument OBJ
ected to. but in the meantime Mr.
Robertson could proceed and make the
argument in question as part of his
main argument.
At the outset Mr.. Mechanism raised
IN objection TO the sitting of Justice
Wider, as his former law firm was en-
'loyed in old trials of Metcalf's claims.
Following the decision in the Motley
ase the court overruled the objection.
Ir. McClanahan asked leave to note N
reception. i:
There are no exceptions in this
curt" Justice Hartwell informed him,
ut counsel said he wished to offer an
reception anyhow. No doubt he had
/ mind laying the foundation for an
ppeal to the United states Supreme
'ourt. =
Chief Justice Frear, with Justice Will
er concurring, ruled that there could
@ no exceptions, saying there was I
lenty of remedy without exceptions.