The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1907-12-23

stating its desire to appeal to the
United States Supreme Court, and
that in order to give jurisdiction to
said court to pass upon the merits OF
the case at seems to be necessary that
4 this court should make q statement
4 of the facts of the case in the nature
! of q special verdict as provided by
| Act so, IS u. S. st. at L.. PIP. 81 and
| g." May 16 the motion was denied.
| "as said cause came up on a bin of
exceptions, and this court has no iu-
| risdiction to make findings of fact in
! matters so presented" The plaintiff
i then moved that the court allow it's
| appeal to the United States Supreme
! Court, which motion was denied. De-
! cember 4 the plaintiff obtained an
order from Mr.. Justice McKenna OF
| the United States Supreme Court that
| the appeal from the judgment of this
court be allowed on the plaintiff giving
a bond In the penal sum of $1,000. con-
| ditioned according to law and apr
proved by the chief Justice of this
court March 5, 1906, the plaintiffs
bond having been approved, it obtain
ed an order from the United States
Supreme Court that the bond operate
as a supersedeas and that the judg-
ment be superseded accordingly. Upon
this appeal the United States Supreme
Court reversed the decree Cudgment)
of this court and remanded the cause
for further proceedings (Bierce v.
Hutchins, 205 L. S. 340). whereupon
the plaintiff moved for Judgment. The
defendant, however, insisting upon his
right to have such of his exceptions
passed upon as are not concluded by
the opinion Of the court above, this
court held that he was entitled to a
consideration of the points presented
by these exceptions. Bierce V. Hut |
chins. Is Haw. 374.
At the time of the decision on the |
exceptions this was the court of last
resort for the case, as no Federal /
question was involved and the appel |
late relations between the courts Of
Hawaii and the Supreme Court of the
United States were not governed by
the law applicable to other Terrific
ries, but were Identical with the law
applicable TO States. Equitable Life
Assurance Society V. Brown, 1877 u. S.
sos March 3, 1905, however, Congress
amended the Organic Act of April 30,
1900, c. 33s. Sec. IS. by adding at the
end Of the section:
Provided, That writs Of error and
appeals may also be taken from the
Supreme Court of the Territory Of Ha-
wall to the Supreme Court OF the
United states in all causes where the
amount involved, exclusive of costs,
exceeds the sum of value Of five thou
sand dollars"
The Supreme Court in its opinion
takes the view that the proviso add
ed by the act Of March 3. 1905, to the
previously existing right Of review
not only puts Hawaii on the same
footing as other Territories with re-
spect to this class Of cases, but also
puts in force here the practise act Of
April T. 1874. Oh. SO; IS Stat. ], q;
1 suppl. Rev. stats. !. This act pur-
ports to deal with appeals from Ter
..itories which have adopted the code
procedure. and its application to
court which has always observed the
distinction between common law and
chancery procedure in a common law
case in which the main decision was
rendered before the act was appli-
cable naturally gives rise to many con-
founding questions.