The Maui news. [volume] (Wailuku, Maui, H.I.) 1900-current, 1910-05-14
Leg
And Suit
Damage Suit Against Sugar
Co. Thrown Out.

The supreme court handed down
an opinion Friday in the matter OF
Manuel Garcia, by his next friend
Antonio Garcia, versus Kekaha
Sugar Company. 1t appears that
the boy, who was suing for $15, ZOO
damages, loses his case. The dcci-
sion, written by Chief Justice Hart
well, was:
The text of the opinion is as fol-
lows:
The plaintiff, a minor, brought
by his next friend this action to re-
cover the sum of $4,000 for per-
sonal injuries resulting from negli-
gence in stopping without warning
and at an unusual place train of
open fiat cars, on one of which the
minor was riding, and from defec-
tive appliances, guards and coup
lings. The defendants demurrer
to the declaration on the ground
that 1T appears that the cause of
action attempted to be set forth is
barred by limitation of the time by
reason of and under the provisions
of Act 113 of the Session Laws of
1907, :" was sustained, and the plain
tiff electing to stand by his declara-
ton judgement was entered for the
defendant the plaintiff excepting
thereto as well as to the order sus-
tanning the demurrer.
The claim of the plaintiff is that
Act 113, which limits the bringing
of such actions to one year after the
cause occurred, is subject to the pro-
vision (Sec. 1879 r. L.) of the gen
earl statute of limitations (Sec. 1871
R. 3D. by which if person receiv-
ing personal injuries is within the
age OF twenty years the time of six
years therein limited for bringing
his action does not begin to run un-
til he reaches his majority.
The argument in substance is
that the statute which makes this
provision for disability is not ex-
pressly repealed by Act 113 and is
not repealed by implication since,
as the plaintiff claims, there is moth
ing in the provision for disability
which is necessarily inconsistent
with Act 1l3. A large number of
cases are cited to the effect that re-
peals by implication are not favor
ed, which is true, in the meaning
that the implication ought to be
quite clear, but our statute, with
this modification, fixes the rule on
this subject.
. The repeal of a law is either
express or implied; it is express
when it is literally declared by
subsequent law; it is implied when
the new law contains provisions con-
trary to, or irreconciable with those,
of the former law See. II r. l..
Act 113 5. l.. 1907 enaots: Ac-
tions for the recovery of compensa-
tion for damage or injury to persons
or property must be instituted with
in one year next after the cause of
action accrued, and not after. Pro-
vided that actions, on such causes,
which accrued prior to the approval
OF this Act, if otherwise barred there
by, may be brought within one year
after such approval and not latter.
This last enactment on the sub
lect does-not purport to amend Sec.
1871 X. l.. and is inclusive of all cases
therein mentioned.
The argument of hardship to the
minor In not being allowed until he
becomes of age to bring his action
presents question of legislative poll
cy which we are not at liberty to con
slider.
Exceptions overruled." :"
TN Harrison for plaintiff; G. R.
Hemenway (Smith, Warren and
Hemenway on the brieD for defen-
dant.
The supreme court also handed
down an opinion in the old matter
of Moses Miller VS.. William Cha
man, oyerruling the exceptions of the
defendant and sustaining the trial
Judge, the case was an action to quiet
title.