Woodward v. Auyong

Hawaii Supreme Court

Woodward v. Auyong

34 Haw. 509, 1938 Haw. LEXIS 25

CourtHawaii Supreme Court

DecidedApril 25, 1938

DocketNo. 2347.

StatusPublished

This text of 34 Haw. 509 (Woodward v. Auyong) 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

Woodward v. Auyong, 34 Haw. 509, 1938 Haw. LEXIS 25 (haw 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant-appellant by motion dated April 20,1938, requests “that the record herein be enlarged and supplemented by incorporating therein all the instructions given by the Court to the jury in the above entitled matter, and the defendant’s instructions I, II, III, Y, YI, YII and YIll, which instructions were refused, for the reason that the defendant-appellant omitted to request the same in his praecipe.”

In the month of August, 1937, the deficiencies in the record on appeal were brought to the attention of appellant by appellee’s motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions, which was argued and decided in the month of September. The case was then briefed by both parties and placed on the calendar for argument. During the entire intervening period the appellant did nothing to amplify the record on appeal and offers no justification for his neglect. Appellant’s failure to act promptly or within a reasonable time is inexcusable.

The request to enlarge the record is denied.

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

Per Curiam.

The defendant-appellant by motion dated April 20,1938, requests “that the record herein be enlarged and supplemented by incorporating therein all the instructions given by the Court to the jury in the above entitled matter, and the defendant’s instructions I, II, III, Y, YI, YII and YIll, which instructions were refused, for the reason that the defendant-appellant omitted to request the same in his praecipe.”

In the month of August, 1937, the deficiencies in the record on appeal were brought to the attention of appellant by appellee’s motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions, which was argued and decided in the month of September. The case was then briefed by both parties and placed on the calendar for argument. During the entire intervening period the appellant did nothing to amplify the record on appeal and offers no justification for his neglect. Appellant’s failure to act promptly or within a reasonable time is inexcusable.

The request to enlarge the record is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 Haw. 509, 1938 Haw. LEXIS 25, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woodward-v-auyong-haw-1938.