Case Name: Lahaina Agricultural Company, Limited, a Corporation, v. A. Poaha, Naimu, Becky Kaaeae (w), Mahiai (w), Kupenu Napala (w), Kamaka (w), Lucy K. Searle Nee Lucy K. Kanaulu (w), and Kaiewa Kuana (w)
Court: Supreme Court of the Territory of Hawaii
Jurisdiction: Hawaii
Decision Date: 1907-09-24
Citations: 18 Haw. 663
Docket Number: No. 113
Parties: Lahaina Agricultural Company, Limited, a Corporation, v. A. Poaha, Naimu, Becky Kaaeae (w), Mahiai (w), Kupenu Napala (w), Kamaka (w), Lucy K. Searle Nee Lucy K. Kanaulu (w), and Kaiewa Kuana (w).
Judges: Hartwell, C.J., Wilder and Ballou, J-J.
Reporter: Hawaii Reports
Volume: 18
Pages: 663–663

Head Matter:
No. 113.
Lahaina Agricultural Company, Limited, a Corporation, v. A. Poaha, Naimu, Becky Kaaeae (w), Mahiai (w), Kupenu Napala (w), Kamaka (w), Lucy K. Searle Nee Lucy K. Kanaulu (w), and Kaiewa Kuana (w).
Exceptions from circuit court, second circuit.
Submitted September 24, 1907.
Decided September 24, 1907.
Hartwell, C.J., Wilder and Ballou, J-J.
M. F. Pros-ser for plaintiff. C. 1L. Ashford for defendants.

Opinion:
After the case had been submitted plaintiff moved that the hearing on the bill of exceptions be reopened and the same continued for the purpose of allowing it to apply for an amendment to the bill of exceptions. Per curiam: The motion is denied, it appearing that the amendment desired, if granted, would incorporate a new exception in the bill of exceptions after the statutory time for allowance had elapsed. See Territory v. Cotton Bros., 17 Haw. 608; Kapiolani Est. v. Thurston, 16 Haw. 147.
Plaintiff then moved for leave to withdraw its bill of exceptions. A majority of the court thought that the motion should be granted. Per curiam: The motion is granted.