
    CHAR CHUNG YIM v. TAMI GOTO.
    No. 2128.
    Submitted January 25, 1934.
    Decided May 17, 1934.
    Perry, C. J., Banks and Parsons, JJ.
   Per Curiam.

This case is sought to be reviewed upon defendant’s bill of exceptions. The case, an action for-damages for breach of contract, ivas tried in the circuit court, jury waived, upon appeal from the district court of Honolulu. Decision and judgment in the circuit court were-for the plaintiff in the sum of $275, together with interest, costs and attorney’s commissions. Defendant’s bill contains two exceptions only. Exception one avers that “the trial court erred in making, rendering and filing herein its decision in the above entitled matter as follows,” Then follows in extenso a copy of the decision which contains, in effect, findings of fact and conclusions of law upon several points, folloAved by the Avords “to Avhicli decision an exception Avas duly taken and alloAved by the court.” Exception two is that “the court erred in the entry of judgment in the above entitled matter as folloAvs,” followed by a copy of the judgment and the Avords “to AA'liich judgment an exception Avas duly taken and allowed by the court. All pleadings, exhibits, decision, judgment and the transcript of testimony taken in said court and cause are hereby referred to and incorporated in this bill of exceptions and prayed to be taken and considered a part hereof as completely as if same had been set out herein in full.” Separate exception to the decision is as folloAvs: “Comes noAV Tami Goto, defendant above named' * * * and hereby excepts to the decision made, rendered and filed herein on the 21st day of July, A. H. 1933.” Exception to the judgment .is in the same general terms, as follows: “Comes now Tami Goto, defendant above named * * * and hereby excepts to the judgment made, rendered and filed herein on the 22nd day of August, A. D. 1933.” The question of the sufficiency or insufficiency of the exeéptions is presented and argued in the briefs upon Avhicli the case is submitted. Plaintiff appellee urges that “exceptions No. 1 and No. 2 above recited are too general, indefinite and uncertain to be considered, and raise no question of laAV for revieAV.” Defendant appellant concedes that there is no distinguishable difference so far as the question thus presented is concerned between the case of Ann Prestidge Ryan v. City and County of Honolulu and the case at bar. With this statement Ave are in substantial agreement. Upon authority of the case last above cited, reported ante on page 92, the exceptions and bill of exceptions in the case at bar are dismissed because they are too general and indefinite to require consideration by this court.

M. L. Heen for plaintiff.

E. J. Botts for defendant.  