16 Haw. 797 | Haw. | 1905
The plaintiff moves that the defendant’s bill of exceptions be stricken from the calendar on the grounds that the defendant’s motion for a new trial, the rulings upon which constitute one of the grounds of exception, was improperly entertained by the trial court, a sufficient bond not having been filed with the motion .conditioned not to remove or dispose of any property to the detriment of the plaintiff liable to execution, and costs not having been paid on the filing of said motion; and for the further ground that a writ of error has been sued out by the defendant raising identically the same questions which are set out in the bill of exceptions.
The case was tried at the April term 1904. A verdict was found for the plaintiff on the 30th day of April. On the oth day of May the defendant filed a motion for a new trial and a
The defendant’s bill of exceptions however incorporates numerous exceptions to rulings made during the course of the trial. An order was obtained on the 13th day of May, 1904, granting the defendant additional time in which to file its bill of exceptions; the time given being ten days after the completion and delivery of the transcript of evidence. This order being obtained within twenty days after the verdict, was effectual to save defendant’s rights. The transcript of evidence was completed and placed on file October 27th, 1904. -The bill of exceptions was presented to the trial judge on the same date and was allowed by the judge and filed on the 18th day of November, 1904. In addition to the bond for $3,100, costs were paid by the defendant, and the sum of $25 deposited in lieu of bond for future costs on the 17th day of May, 1904. The bill of exceptions therefore, as to all of the exceptions taken during the course of the trial, is properly before this court.
The defendant however on the 29th day of October, 1904, sued out a writ of error setting out, in its assignments of errors, matters which the plaintiff claims are identical with the mat