modern rule in Hawaii

1981Life of the Land v. Ariyoshi, 59 Haw. 156 , 577 P.2d 1116 (1978).

1981Life of the Land v. Ariyoshi, 59 Haw. 156 , 577 P.2d 1116 (1978).

1979Idaho Water Resource Board v. Kramer, 97 Idaho 535 , 548 P.2d 35, 52 (1976); Keenan v. Price, supra. An example of the application of this rule is to be found in Barnhart v. Herseth, 88 S.D. 503 , 222 N.W.2d 131 (1974).

1979Idaho Water Resource Board v. Kramer, 97 Idaho 535 , 548 P.2d 35, 52 (1976); Keenan v. Price, supra. An example of the application of this rule is to be found in Barnhart v. Herseth, 88 S.D. 503 , 222 N.W.2d 131 (1974).

1979In Kerby v. Luhrs, 44 Ariz. 208 , 36 P.2d 549 (1934), for example, the Arizona constitution expressly provided that “[i]f more than one proposed amendment shall be submitted at any election, such proposed amendments shall be submitted in such manner that the electors may vote for or against such proposed amendments separately. ’ ’ The modern test for duplicity is whether or not the propositions contained in the amendment are all germane to a common object and purpose.

1979In Kerby v. Luhrs, 44 Ariz. 208 , 36 P.2d 549 (1934), for example, the Arizona constitution expressly provided that “[i]f more than one proposed amendment shall be submitted at any election, such proposed amendments shall be submitted in such manner that the electors may vote for or against such proposed amendments separately. ’ ’ The modern test for duplicity is whether or not the propositions contained in the amendment are all germane to a common object and purpose.

1967While the modern rule as to the immunity of judges of courts of limited jurisdiction was noted in Gomez v. Whitney, 21 Haw. 539, 547 , and Leong Yau v. Carden, 23 Haw. 362, 366 , this court has not squarely overruled Alau v. Everett, 7 Haw. 82 , and Hang Lung Kee & Co. v. Bickerton, 4 Haw. 584, 588 .

1967While the modern rule as to the immunity of judges of courts of limited jurisdiction was noted in Gomez v. Whitney, 21 Haw. 539, 547 , and Leong Yau v. Carden, 23 Haw. 362, 366 , this court has not squarely overruled Alau v. Everett, 7 Haw. 82 , and Hang Lung Kee & Co. v. Bickerton, 4 Haw. 584, 588 .

1967While the modern rule as to the immunity of judges of courts of limited jurisdiction was noted in Gomez v. Whitney, 21 Haw. 539, 547 , and Leong Yau v. Carden, 23 Haw. 362, 366 , this court has not squarely overruled Alau v. Everett, 7 Haw. 82 , and Hang Lung Kee & Co. v. Bickerton, 4 Haw. 584, 588 .

1967While the modern rule as to the immunity of judges of courts of limited jurisdiction was noted in Gomez v. Whitney, 21 Haw. 539, 547 , and Leong Yau v. Carden, 23 Haw. 362, 366 , this court has not squarely overruled Alau v. Everett, 7 Haw. 82 , and Hang Lung Kee & Co. v. Bickerton, 4 Haw. 584, 588 .

1962Such conduct does not, as a matter of law, invalidate the verdict, but is simply a circumstance which, with other circumstances, ought to be taken into account by the court in determining whether or not a new trial should be granted." (Emphasis added.) Emphasis is directed to the prejudice that may arise from unauthorized separations, and the best reasoned cases have held that "* * * `there must be some evidence of other misconduct, in addition to the mere fact of separation, which has operated to the party's prejudice.'" 43 Am.Dec. 65, 77, quoted in McDowd v. Pig'n Whistle Corp., 26 Cal.2d 69

1962Such conduct does not, as a matter of law, invalidate the verdict, but is simply a circumstance which, with other circumstances, ought to be taken into account by the court in determining whether or not a new trial should be granted." (Emphasis added.) Emphasis is directed to the prejudice that may arise from unauthorized separations, and the best reasoned cases have held that "* * * `there must be some evidence of other misconduct, in addition to the mere fact of separation, which has operated to the party's prejudice.'" 43 Am.Dec. 65, 77, quoted in McDowd v. Pig'n Whistle Corp., 26 Cal.2d 69

1959The defendant admits the circuit court followed the decision of Minister v. Parke, Administrator, 4 Haw. 366, but asks this court to reconsider the doctrine of that case “in the light of 75 years development away from it in many mainland jurisdictions.” She states the modern rule is the sounder one and makes for more orderly administration of estates.

1959The case of Minister v. Parke, Administrator, supra, held that the statute limiting the time within which claims may be presented against the estates of deceased persons is no bar to a claim by the government.

1959No laches was imputable to him; these exemptions were founded upon considerations of public policy.’ ” (Emphasis added.) There is a split of authority upon the point as to whether a state government is barred like any other creditor but the decisions of the Federal courts are uniformly that the Federal Government is not barred from enforcing its claim by not filing its claim against decedent’s estate within the specified time. ''It is well settled that the United States is not bound by state statutes of limitation or subject to the defense of laches in enforcing is rights.” (U. S. v. Summerlin

1939(See 2 Jones, Evidence [2d ed.] § 708.) “The condition of a man’s mind Avith reference to Avhat he thinks, feels, believes, intends, and his motives, is always a fact, and it is a fact Avhich is often required to be ascertained both in civil and in criminal cases.” Gardom v. Woodward, 44 Kan. 758 , 25 Pac. 199 .

1938Courts have been ‘keeping pace with the progress of science’ and enlightened unfolding, and have *503 relaxed the rigor of the rules, and now competency depends upon the understanding and moral sense — the degree of intelligence and understanding — of the witness.” (See also People v. Enright, 99 N. E. 936 .) So it may be said that the modern rule is, briefly, the witness will be deemed competent if he has the ability to observe, recollect and communicate the essentials about which he is called to testify with accuracy sufficient to make the narration correspond to the knowledge and the recoll

1921Scott v. Pilipo, 24 Haw. 277, 283 ; Pastine v. Altman, 107 Atl. 803 ; 38 Cyc. 115.

1921Scott v. Pilipo, 24 Haw. 277, 283 ; Pastine v. Altman, 107 Atl. 803 ; 38 Cyc. 115.