The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1907-03-21
CHAPLIN CASES
CONSOLIDATED
Judge De Bolt So Decides but
Plaintiff Appeals From
Him.

Judge De Bolt rendered a written de-
cision yesterday on the motion of E.
NJ. Watson for defendants to CONSOLE
date the damage suits of Walter c..
Weldon against C. w. Chaplin and Mrs
c. W. Chaplin of New York for injuries
sustained by plaintiff in Kapiolani
park from the approach of an auto
mobile, in which Mrs. Chaplin was hav-
ing an outing, to a horse that plaintiff
was riding. 1t was a nervous horse
and the rider was thrown. The ques-
a novel one here.
These are two separate and distinct
actions in trespass, the court says, now
pending and set down for trial on
day certain. The facts involved in
each are the same and constitute one
transaction only. Also, as shown by
the respective complaints, as well as by
the admission of counsel, the actions
were instituted on the theory that the
feasors, against whom a joint action,
instead of these several actions, could
have been brought and maintained.
Each of the actions must necessarily
depend upon the same witnesses and
the same evidence The same counsel
appear in each action. The motion I'M
I'll, -; 81,
ground that said actions are of a like
nature and arise out of the same trans
action and that such consolidation will
avoid unnecessary cost and delay"
A. Perry and A. G. M Robertson for
plaintiff, objected to the consolidation
on the grounds that plaintiff had the
absolute right to sue both defendants
jointly or each separately, and having
elected to pursue the latter course he
each action separately before different
juries. They also urged that the court
had no power to order the consolidation
and to require the parties to submit
the issues involved in the two actions
to one and the same jury.
Judge De Bolt quotes authorities one !
of which says there are instances in
which thirty or forty actions have been
consolidated into one" He also dis |
cusses the Hawaiian statutes bearing |
on the question, which plaintiff claimed |
were inapplicable to these cases, and |
he decides the motion in substance as
follows:
Correctly speaking, the actions un-
der consideration are not to be con-
solidated but simply tried together.
The rights of all parties can be as well
and protected in one trial be-
fore one jury as in two trials before
two juries. Whatever could or can
be properly and legally presented as
claim or defense in separate trials can
likewise be presented in the trial of
the two cases together.
ut is further urged that the motion
can not be granted because the actions
are not between the same plaintiff and
the same defendant. This point, as it
seems to me, is not well taken, mas
much as the parties to these actions
might have been the same If plaintiff
had sued defendants Jointly.
1.-The adoption of this rule tends to
prevent unnecessary litigation; it will
lessen the cost and save time also, and
IS supported by reason and authority
1.-THE consolidation will violate no
statute and will be in harmony with
the common law rule, as well as tend
% facilitate and promote the admins
ration of justice
"A formal order, if desired, CONSOLE
iating the two actions for trial before
me Jury at one and the same time, will
be signed on presentation"
Counsel for plaintiff have filed eXcep-
ions to the order of consolidation, so
hat the question will go TO the Su-
Oreme Court. !