supposed error in Hawaii

1959Soc., 10 Haw. 128, 129 .) "One of the essential purposes of an exception is, that the attention of the trial court is thereby specifically called to a particular point of law going to the legal sufficiency of the ruling made, thus affording the court an opportunity to correct the supposed error.” (Ripley & Davis v. Kapiolani Estate, 22 Haw. 507, 509.) See also Kaehu v. Namealoha, 20 Haw. 350 , and Scott v. Kona Development Co., 21 Haw. 258, 263 .

1954Soc., 10 Haw. 128, 129 .) “One of the essential purposes of an exception is, that the attention of the trial court is thereby specifically called to a particular point of law going to the legal sufficiency of the ruling made, thus affording the court an opportunity to correct the supposed error.” (Scott v. Kona Development Co., 21 Haw. 258, 263 .) “In a long line of decisions this court has held that exceptions must be sufficiently definite and specific to call to the attention of this court a point of law which was called to the attention of the trial court affecting the legality of its rulin

1959Soc., 10 Haw. 128, 129 .) "One of the essential purposes of an exception is, that the attention of the trial court is thereby specifically called to a particular point of law going to the legal sufficiency of the ruling made, thus affording the court an opportunity to correct the supposed error.” (Ripley & Davis v. Kapiolani Estate, 22 Haw. 507, 509.) See also Kaehu v. Namealoha, 20 Haw. 350 , and Scott v. Kona Development Co., 21 Haw. 258, 263 .

1954Soc., 10 Haw. 128, 129 .) “One of the essential purposes of an exception is, that the attention of the trial court is thereby specifically called to a particular point of law going to the legal sufficiency of the ruling made, thus affording the court an opportunity to correct the supposed error.” (Scott v. Kona Development Co., 21 Haw. 258, 263 .) “In a long line of decisions this court has held that exceptions must be sufficiently definite and specific to call to the attention of this court a point of law which was called to the attention of the trial court affecting the legality of its rulin

1966In Godfrey v. Rowland, 17 Haw. 577 , which was an appeal after the new trial ordered in the earlier case, 16 Haw. 377 , supra, it was indicated that it was error to permit the wife to testify to nonintercourse with her husband after they Avere separated, but whether this was so because of lack of corroboration of the wife, 24 or because of adoption of Lord Mansfield’s rule, is not clear, and in any event the supposed error was held to be harmless— this was because the ejectment suit could be successfully maintained even, if intercourse occurred after the separation and the two sons born to'the

1966In Godfrey v. Rowland, 17 Haw. 577 , which was an appeal after the new trial ordered in the earlier case, 16 Haw. 377 , supra, it was indicated that it was error to permit the wife to testify to nonintercourse with her husband after they Avere separated, but whether this was so because of lack of corroboration of the wife, 24 or because of adoption of Lord Mansfield’s rule, is not clear, and in any event the supposed error was held to be harmless— this was because the ejectment suit could be successfully maintained even, if intercourse occurred after the separation and the two sons born to'the

1959Soc., 10 Haw. 128, 129 .) "One of the essential purposes of an exception is, that the attention of the trial court is thereby specifically called to a particular point of law going to the legal sufficiency of the ruling made, thus affording the court an opportunity to correct the supposed error.” (Ripley & Davis v. Kapiolani Estate, 22 Haw. 507, 509.) See also Kaehu v. Namealoha, 20 Haw. 350 , and Scott v. Kona Development Co., 21 Haw. 258, 263 .

1954Soc., 10 Haw. 128, 129 .) “One of the essential purposes of an exception is, that the attention of the trial court is thereby specifically called to a particular point of law going to the legal sufficiency of the ruling made, thus affording the court an opportunity to correct the supposed error.” (Scott v. Kona Development Co., 21 Haw. 258, 263 .) “In a long line of decisions this court has held that exceptions must be sufficiently definite and specific to call to the attention of this court a point of law which was called to the attention of the trial court affecting the legality of its rulin

1954Soc., 10 Haw. 128, 129 .) “One of the essential purposes of an exception is, that the attention of the trial court is thereby specifically called to a particular point of law going to the legal sufficiency of the ruling made, thus affording the court an opportunity to correct the supposed error.” (Scott v. Kona Development Co., 21 Haw. 258, 263 .) “In a long line of decisions this court has held that exceptions must be sufficiently definite and specific to call to the attention of this court a point of law which was called to the attention of the trial court affecting the legality of its rulin

1913That it was an attempt to correct a supposed error of the land commission which involved an attack on the judgment is shown by the remark made by this court that “Every year which .passes increases the force of the reason which demands that the adjudications of the land commission he not now re-examined.” Estate of Kekauluohi, 6 Haw. 172 .