Case Name: T. P. Tisdale vs. Bark H. W. Almy, Elisha Freeman, Master
Court: Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii
Jurisdiction: Hawaii
Decision Date: 1882-08-14
Citations: 4 Haw. 503
Docket Number: 
Parties: T. P. Tisdale vs. Bark H. W. Almy, Elisha Freeman, Master.
Judges: Judd, C. J., Mg Gully and Austin, J. J.
Reporter: Hawaii Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 503–504

Head Matter:
SUPREME COURT—IN BANCO.
JULY TERM, 1882—IN ADMIRALTY.
Judd, C. J., Mg Gully and Austin, J. J.
T. P. Tisdale vs. Bark H. W. Almy, Elisha Freeman, Master.
In a libel against a vessel- trading between the ports of Honolulu and San Francisco, the master was represented by counsel and left port having given a bond to respond to the judgment. Judgment was rendered while the vessel was away, the attorney of the master having notice and no appeal was perfected in ten days after judgment;
Held, respondent was not allowed ten days after his return to port to complete his appeal. Notice to attorney is notice to client..

Opinion:
Opinion of. the Court by
Judd, C. J..
This was a libel in Admiralty heard' by Mr. Justice Austin.
The vessel attached in this case was a trader running-between this- port and San Francisco. After hearing the ease the learned Justice took time to consider it, and rendered his decision on the 30th of May last. The vessel was absent oin •another voyage, having been released by her master's giving a bond to respond to the judgment. On the return of the vessel an appeal was perfected by paying the costs on the 10th of July.
The motion is made to vacate the appeal as not being completed within the ten days as required by the statute and rules of Court.
It is contended that the respondent should be allowed ten days after his return to this port to complete his appeal. We do not think so. He was represented by counsel in this matter and ought to have instructed them, in ease an adverse- decision was made' in bis absence- to appeal if he' so desired. He should have contemplated and provided for this contingency. Notice to an attorney is notice to his client, and any relaxation of this rule would lead to great embarrassment to-opposing litigants and to the Court.
Davidson and Hatch for plaintiff.
Dole and Castle for respondent.
Honolulu, August 14, 1882.
The appeal is dismissed.