Bank of Bishop & Co. v. Hawaii Soap Co.

Per Ouricum.

The plaintiff moves for a rehearing upon the grounds:

1. That in the opinion of October 5, 1923 (27 Haw. 537), it was held that the note upon which this action is predicated was a valid and existing note;

2. That by the same opinion it was held that the defendant Akira was entitled to a new trial for the pur pose of showing- that he had. been released as an indorser upon said valid and existing note;

8. That at the second trial the only evidence given by Akira was evidence that for a consideration the payee of the note, the plaintiff herein, had agreed “to cancel the said note;”

4.…