Kamalu v. Lovell
Hawaii Supreme Court
Where after verdict a motion is made before the Judge who presided at the jury trial for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict is contrary to the evidence, a “ bill of exceptions ” is not necessary. When, however, this motion has been ruled upon, a bill of exceptions is necessary in order to pass the case to the Appellate Court. Such a bill of exceptions should embody the evidence.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion of the Court by
Judd, C. J.
At the second trial of this action, which is ejectment,, the-verdict of the jury for the plaintiff was set aside, and a new trial ordered by the presiding Justice, as-being in his- opinion *602contrary to tbe evidence. To this exceptions are now taken to the full Court.
The counsel for the exceptions contends that the original motion for a new trial was not completed according to law, iir this respect, to wit: that no bill of exceptions was allowed and signed by the presiding- Judge prior to his entertaining-the motion. To sustain this view, Sections' 1,155 and…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Kekaua v. KaleiHawaii Supreme Court · 1876
- Luka v. PoohinaHawaii Supreme Court · 1876
- Kanoa v. LovellHawaii Supreme Court · 1870