Kametani v. Okuhama

• Decision Date: 01 June 1925
• Docket Number: No. 1598.,1598.
• Citation: 28 Haw. 458
• Parties: C. KAMETANI AND S. NISHIHIRA v. OKUHAMA, MINATOGAWA AND KEMBO, WHOSE FIRST NAMES ARE UNKNOWN TO PLAINTIFFS.
• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

28 Haw. 458

C. KAMETANI AND S. NISHIHIRA

v.OKUHAMA, MINATOGAWA AND KEMBO, WHOSE FIRST NAMES ARE UNKNOWN TO PLAINTIFFS.

No. 1598.

Supreme Court of the Territory of Hawai‘i.

Argued May 25, 1925.

Decided June 1, 1925.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HEREEXCEPTIONS FROM CIRCUIT COURT SECOND CIRCUIT. HON. D. H. CASE, JUDGE.

Syllabus by the Court

While a witness may be asked on cross-examination as to specific acts and matters showing his general moral character in so far as this may affect his credibility, it is within the discretion of the judge presiding at the trial whether to allow or disallow the particular questions asked and claimed to be of this general nature. The trial judge's ruling will not be disturbed unless it can be said under the circumstances of the particular case under consideration that there was in his ruling an abuse of discretion.

Under an exception to the verdict on the ground that it is contrary to the evidence, this court cannot consider questions of credibility of witnesses. The only question which it can consider is whether evidence was adduced, substantial and more than a mere scintilla, sufficient to support the verdict. The evidence in this case is held sufficient to support the verdict.

H. L. Wrenn ( A. E. Jenkins and J. L. Coke with him on the brief) for plaintiffs.

W. C. Tsukiyama ( E. Vincent and Huber & Kemp with him on the briefs) for defendants.

PETERS, C. J., PERRY AND LINDSAY, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY PERRY, J.

This is an action of assumpsit. In the declaration the plaintiffs alleged that on or about December 1, 1920, they sold and delivered to the defendants “a field prepared for pineapples in the district of Makawao, County of Maui,” for the agreed price of $10,150 and that the defendants although requested had failed to pay the sum of $2,906.10. By an amendment duly allowed by the court at the beginning of the trial the plaintiffs added a second count to the effect that “plaintiffs and defendants accounted with each other” at Pauwela, Maui, on November 16, 1920, and that “on such accounting there was found to be due to plaintiffs from the defendants the sum of $2,906.10, which sum defendants undertook and faithfully promised to pay unto plaintiffs.” The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs for the amount claimed. The case comes to this court on exceptions.

One of the exceptions is to the verdict on the ground that it was contrary to the law and the evidence and to the weight of the evidence. Evidence was adduced at the trial by the defendants as well as by the plaintiffs. There was a direct conflict between the testimony given for the defendants and that given for the plaintiffs, and there were also some contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs. Questions of credibility, however, are solely for the jury to determine and the only question open for consideration under the exception to the verdict is whether there was substantial evidence, more than a mere scintilla, sufficient to support the verdict for the plaintiffs. There was evidence, direct and circumstantial, tending to show the following facts: that one Charles Awai, being at the time the holder of a lease of about fifty acres of pineapple land, entered into an agreement whereby he was to assign the lease to the two plaintiffs and one Gibo; that subsequently, Gibo having departed for Japan, the plaintiffs entered into an agreement with the defendants Okuhama and Minatogawa and another...