Shilhan v. Ho

OPINION OF THE COURT BY

TOWSE, C. J.

Appeal is prosecuted from the decision of a magistrate of the district court of Honolulu (R. L. H. 1945, § 9501). The pertinent portions of the amended certificate recite:

“In refusing to grant the defendant’s motion, the Magistrate held as a matter of law:

“1. The judgment rendered May 13, 1952 was not void.

“2. The Magistrate was without authority to vacate said judgment.”

The material facts are not disputed. Appellee filed a suit in the district court to recover damages in the sum of $500 to his vehicle resulting from a collision with appellant’s vehicle.…