Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1910-10-13
EDWARD CAMPBELL o. II. HACKFELD & co.

TRIAL-Uerdict-eptdente of-pidntifs habits.
verdict is evidence rejected
struck out II II afterwards before the jury.
It plaintiff his
whether he was drinking man or not at the time of the ac
for jv
required TO summarize to ~hich instructions to
Instructions properly involving
jury defendants liability a finding by
plaintiff negligent
the duty specifically
the to which its instructions intended to apply.
MISUNDERSTANDING submission Of examination
The plaintiff waived his he be
amine by physician by voluntarily submitting his person for
the physician n presence o jury
OPINION OF THE COURT BY HARTwELI. CT.
The plaintiff brought action the dam
ages for injuries to his person received in the defendants
poy resulting from the breaking of defective rope used in
hosting from the hold of the ship which he employed
trucks which had been used in dschagng cargo. The
details of the shown the former trial in which di-
rected verdict set aside appear in 20 Haw 81. verdict
for the defendant rendered at the second trial and the
plaintiff brings exceptions rulings upon evidence grant
ing the defendants motion that the plaintiffs person be
amned by physician to certain instructions refused and 10
others which given the verdict contrary law the
evidence and the weight of evidence and to the refusal of his
motion for a trial based on the grounds.
The verdict unsupported by evidence: On the con-
rary there evidence and than scntia in support
of it which in conformity with the established practice of this
requires the verdict stand unless there preudcia
in the rulings instructions in requiring the plaintiff
TO submit to personal examination.
Exceptions taken the striking out of certain
made by witnesses for the plaintiff the grounds that they
differences heeay irresponsible to the questions not
popae for redirect examination immateria and to the
rejection offers of evidence by the plaintiff the
ground that the offer sufficiently specific failing to
specific facts sought be shown but the evidence
struck rejected afterwards presented and went to
the jury it is unnecessary discuss whether they right
wrong the plaintiff not harmed by them Territory
Nobriga 10 Iaw. 30. This applies exceptions g., 8,
s, ., 10 II and 49,
In exception witness for the plaintiff when asked what
the in which Tom Pedro showed the rope to the
captain p answered at seemed to me he showing the
the captain and the time it seemed to me in the way
he speaking that the was rotten unit TO % me
struck responsive and giving the wit
ness opinion The witness having testified that he did not
member that he understood any word spoken between the
captain and Tom Pedro" the ruling correct.
AS reference exceptions 3, IA and Is appears in
the brief of either party they not to be taken relied upon
Exception ~ taken to the refusal to allow the plaintiff to
ask of his witnesses whether at the time Of the accident the
plaintiff "was drinking not" 1t is not obvious what
bearing the fact that the plaintiff not drinking IT
shown would have had upon the since at the most would
only have affected the amount of damage to which he would
have been entitled if he had received verdict and for the
further that the absence of evidence the contrary
the presumption that his habits good.
The plaintiff requested the following instructions which
refused:
you find that at the time of the falling the trucks
plaintiff working in the hold under the hatch and
that plaintiff had duty liability to selection oversight
charge the ropes used in hauling the trucks and that
the plaintiff did hear the call stand from under, if you
find there such call then the plaintiff not guilty of
contrbutory negligence"
f you find that the of the falling of the trucks into
the hold plaintiff working in the sarboard wing of the
hold directly beneath the open hatch but the sarboard
side of the space in the hold directly beneath the hatch and out
from under heavy bodies falling through the hatch he not
guilty of contributory negligence"
The instructions properly refused they involve
finding by the jury of the defendants liability duty which
question of law for the and finding by the court
that there negligence in being where the plaintiff stood
the time of the accident.
The plaintiff excepted the following instructions which
given:
If you find from the evidence that although the defendant
may have been guilty of negligence through its
tributng produce the injury complained of still if you find
that the plaintiff also guilty of negligence proxmately
ributng thereto the defendant liable unless his negligent
occurred after he became of the danger which
plaintiff by his neglect may have exposed himself"
IF you believe from the evidence that the danger which