Kekaula v. Kaaukai

• Decision Date: 27 June 1894
• Citation: 9 Haw. 473
• Parties: WAILUU KEKAULA (W.) v. S. M. KAAUKAI.
• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

9 Haw. 473

WAILUU KEKAULA (W.) v. S. M. KAAUKAI.

Supreme Court of Republic of Hawai'i.

June 27, 1894

HEARING JUNE 19, 1894.

EXCRETIONS TO THE RULING OF JUDGE COOPER, CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT.

Syllabus by the Court

The Court will not order a default set aside, and a case re-opened for a rehearing, where it does not appear that there has been a clear case of abuse of discretion by the court.

V. V Ashford and E. Johnson, for plaintiff.

W. C. Achi, for defendant.

JUDD C.J., BICKERTON AND FREAR, JJ.

OPINION

BICKERTON, J.

This case was brought in the District Court of Honolulu, and judgment in default was entered in favor of the plaintiff; a few days afterwards defendant moved the court to set aside the default and re-open the case, based on the following affidavit:

" Now comes S. M. Kaaukai the defendant, and on oath deposes and says that he is the defendant in the above cause; that on Friday afternoon last when the case was tried, he was notified that it was a holiday and that no business would be done in the afternoon of said day in the government offices, and the front door of the court room was shut, so the defendant believed his information; and that's why he did not come before the court, and deponent further saith not.

" S. M. KAAUKAI, Defendant."

After hearing, the court denied the motion, and the defendant appealed against this ruling to the Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit (jury waived). On the 5th day of June, 1894, the matter came on for hearing and now comes here on a bill of exceptions from the said Circuit Court, wherein it is stated-" That after hearing argument by the respective counsel as to the sufficiency of refusing to open such default, the Court ruled that the appealing on said motion to open default should be declined and so ordered, to which ruling and order defendant duly excepted, and his exception was duly allowed."

The facts of the case as they appear to us, are: That the defendant was served with a written notice, that the case would be heard in the District Court, Honolulu, on Friday March 23d, 1894, at 1:30 P.M. That day was Good Friday, and the Court, at the morning session, stated that all civil cases that were ready would be heard that afternoon, that being the regular day; that the main door to the station house building, in which is situated the District Court room, was closed for some reason, but there was another...