Stone v. Hutchinson
Hawaii Supreme Court
ON EXCEPTIONS. The Court, in an action for malicious prosecution, admitted evidence .of the pecuniary ability of defendant to respond in damages but afterwards excluded the evidence from the consideration of the jury. .Herd, no error, unless it appear that the jury based their verdict on the excluded testimony.
Read the full summary
ON EXCEPTIONS. The Court, in an action for malicious prosecution, admitted evidence .of the pecuniary ability of defendant to respond in damages but afterwards excluded the evidence from the consideration of the jury. .Herd, no error, unless it appear that the jury based their verdict on the excluded testimony. The Court in Banco declined to consider a motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was excessive and contrary to law and the evidence, this motion not having been presented to and argued before the Judge who presided at the trial. It appearing from the evidence that the…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion of tbe Court by
HARRIS, C. J.
*118This is an action based upon a complaint in the following form:
“W. H. Stone, of Kau, of the Island of Hawaii, one of the Hawaiian Islands, the said plaintiff, claims of A. Hutchinson, of said Kau, the said defendant, the sum of $5,000 for damages resulting to him, the said plaintiff, for injury done by the defendant to the reputation, character, and feelings of the plaintiff, in that the defendant contriving and maliciously intending to injure the plaintiff in his good name, fame, and credit, and to bring him into public scandal, infamy and disgrace, and to…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Gorton v. De AngelisNew York Supreme Court · 1831
- City & County of San Francisco v. Spring Valley Water WorksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870
- Wenham v. DodgeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1868
3Cited by3 opinions
- Joy Laskar, PH.D. v. Phillip W. HurdCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2020
- Territory v. GotoHawaii Supreme Court · 1923
- Leong Yau v. CardenHawaii Supreme Court · 1916