De Fraga v. Portuguese Mut. Ben. Soc. of Hawaii

• Decision Date: 18 October 1895
• Citation: 10 Haw. 128
• Parties: IGNACIO DE FRAGA v. THE PORTUGUESE MUTUAL BENEFIT SOCIETY OF HAWAII.
• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

10 Haw. 128

IGNACIO DE FRAGA v. THE PORTUGUESE MUTUAL BENEFIT SOCIETY OF HAWAII.

Supreme Court of Republic of Hawai'i.

October 18, 1895

SUBMITTED JULY 8, 1895.

EXCRETIONS FROM CIRCUIT COURT, FIRST CIRCUIT.

Syllabus by the Court

The mere statement in a bill of exceptions that " the learned Judge improperly admitted the records in a former case" is not sufficient to bring to this Court the question of the admissibility of the records as evidence.

In an action against a beneficial association for sick benefits the records of a similar former action are admissible to show the status of the plaintiff as a member of the society and entitled to sick benefits at the date from which such benefits are claimed.

An exception to a " decision and the findings of law and of fact therein" is too general to be considered.

A finding of fact by the Court in a jury waived case, like the verdict of a jury, cannot be set aside if there is sufficient evidence to support it.

A beneficial association cannot at will terminate its liability to pay sick benefits to a member entitled thereto.

A point not raised in the trial court cannot as a rule be considered in this Court.

A member of a beneficial association may sue for sick benefits in a court of law, if he has not been allowed a fair hearing in the tribunals provided by the by-laws of the society.

A. S Hartwell and W. L. Stanley, for plaintiff.

J. A Magoon and W. S. Edings, for defendant.

JUDD, C.J., FREAR, J., AND CIRCUIT JUDGE COOPER, IN PLACE OF BICKERTON J., ABSENT FROM ILLNESS.

OPINION

FREAR J.

This is an action for sick benefits from November 9, 1893, to September 19, 1894, at the rate of $1.25 per day, amounting to $314 and interest thereon, which the plaintiff claims to be payable to him under the by-laws of the defendant corporation, of which he is a member.

The action was tried by the Circuit Court, jury waived, and judgment rendered for the plaintiff. The defendant brings the case here on two alleged exceptions.

One relates to the admissibility of the records of a former case as evidence to show the status of the plaintiff as a member of the defendants society in good standing and entitled to sick benefits on November 8, 1893, the date to which he recovered sick benefits in the former action and from which he claims the same in this action. The statement in the bill of exceptions that " the learned Judge improperly admitted the records in a former case, " is insufficient. Not only is it too vague but it does not show that any objection was made at the trial to the admission of the evidence or that any exception was taken thereto or, if taken, allowed. We may, however, add that we see no reason why the evidence was not admissible.

The other exception was taken to the " decision and the findings of law and of fact therein." Such an exception is too general and indefinite to be considered. The object of an exception as contemplated by the statute is to bring to this Court a specific question of law upon which the trial court has erroneously ruled to the prejudice of the party excepting, and not to enable a party to cast the entire case upon the court for review. Such a loose method of practice is unfair to both the opposite party and the court. See Spencer v. Dodd, 7 Haw. 200; Ahlo v. Aiau, 8 Haw. 70; Curry v. Porter, 125 Mass. 94; Harriman v. Sanger, 67 Me. 442.

But while holding that this...