Case: Carl Waldeyer v. Wailuku Sugar Co.
Abbreviation: Waldeyer v. Wailuku Sugar Co.
Court: Supreme Court of the Territory of Hawaii
Jurisdiction: Hawaii
Decision Date: 1908-11-16
Docket Number: No. 19
Citation: 19 Haw. 244
Volume: 19
Reporter: Hawaii Reports
Parties: Carl Waldeyer v. Wailuku Sugar Co.
Pages: 244–245

No. 19.
Carl Waldeyer v. Wailuku Sugar Co.
Appeal from circuit court, second circuit.
Argued November 16, 1908.
Decided November 16, 1908.
Hartwell, C. J., Wilder and Ballou, J.J.
This is an action at law in the circuit court of the second circuit in which defendant’s motion for a continuance was denied. Tlie circuit judge deeming it advisable for a more speedy termination of the case allowed an interlocutory appeal to this court from his ruling and certified up to the same. Plaintiff moves that the appeal be dismissed on the ground that no appeal lies under the statute, R. L. Sec. 1864, which provides as follows: “Bills of exceptions * * * * may be certified to the supreme court from decisions overruling demurrers or from other interlocutory orders, decisions or judgments whenever the judge in his discretion may think the same advisable for a more speedy termination of the case. The refusal of the judge to certify an interlocutory bill of exceptions to the supreme court shall not be reviewable by any other court.” Defendant concedes that the only method by which the action of the court complained of may be reviewed is by exceptions, but claims that the certificate of appeal sufficiently sets out the exception in question and that it may properly be considered by this court as a bill of exceptions.
R- P. Quarles for plaintiff.
17. A. Kinney and R. B. Anderson for defendant.

Per curiam:
There is no doubt that the ruling in question cannot be reviewed by appeal. The certificate of appeal is jfot- and does not purport to be a bill of exceptions, and consequently cannot be considered as such. A majority of the court think that the motion should be granted and it is so ordered.