Chang Wong v. Jones

Hawaii Supreme Court

Chang Wong v. Jones

34 Haw. 498, 1938 Haw. LEXIS 28

CourtHawaii Supreme Court

DecidedApril 4, 1938

DocketNo. 2359.

StatusPublished

This text of 34 Haw. 498 (Chang Wong v. Jones) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hawaii Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chang Wong v. Jones, 34 Haw. 498, 1938 Haw. LEXIS 28 (haw 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff-appellee moves to dismiss appellant’s bill of exceptions on the ground of vagueness and insufficiency. But two exceptions are contained in the bill, one of which is a general exception to an oral decision of the court below, and the other a like exception to the written decision. Both decisions contain a number of findings and conclusions of law. After the court had rendered its oral decision, defendant’s counsel, Mr. Dwight, addressed the court, saying: “May we except your honor, and give a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court?” Following the filing of the written decision the defendant-appellant filed an exception in the following language: “Now comes John K. Jones, defendant above named, and hereby excepts to the Decision and Judgment of the Court heretofore filed herein.” Neither of these exceptions called to the attention of the trial court, nor do they call to the attention of this court, any question upon which the trial court has erroneously ruled to the prejudice of the defendant-appellant. On authority of Fraga v. Portuguese Mut. Ben. Soc., 10 Haw. 128, 129 (see also Serrao v. Soares, 11 Haw. 284, 285; Saiki v. Lee Sing, 27 Haw. 399, 402-403; Yoshioka v. Shiraki, 29 Haw. 459, 463), the motion to dismiss must be granted.

The appeal is dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff-appellee moves to dismiss appellant’s bill of exceptions on the ground of vagueness and insufficiency. But two exceptions are contained in the bill, one of which is a general exception to an oral decision of the court below, and the other a like exception to the written decision. Both decisions contain a number of findings and conclusions of law. After the court had rendered its oral decision, defendant’s counsel, Mr. Dwight, addressed the court, saying: “May we except your honor, and give a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court?” Following the filing of the written decision the defendant-appellant filed an exception in the following language: “Now comes John K. Jones, defendant above named, and hereby excepts to the Decision and Judgment of the Court heretofore filed herein.” Neither of these exceptions called to the attention of the trial court, nor do they call to the attention of this court, any question upon which the trial court has erroneously ruled to the prejudice of the defendant-appellant. On authority of Fraga v. Portuguese Mut. Ben. Soc., 10 Haw. 128, 129 (see also Serrao v. Soares, 11 Haw. 284, 285; Saiki v. Lee Sing, 27 Haw. 399, 402-403; Yoshioka v. Shiraki, 29 Haw. 459, 463), the motion to dismiss must be granted.

The appeal is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 Haw. 498, 1938 Haw. LEXIS 28, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chang-wong-v-jones-haw-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack