
    PETER HOLIONA, DANIEL DAMIEN, ABLE LANGSI, HANAKAHI KAOPUA, LOUIS HOKUANA, WILLIE HOKUANA, JULIA POLIKAPU, DAVID HOKUANA AND JOHN HOKUANA v. KAMAI, ALSO KNOWN AS AND CALLED KAMAI KILA, KILA AND AH FAT.
    No. 1093.
    Motion to Dismiss.
    Argued June 12, 1918.
    Decided June 14, 1918.
    Coke C. J., Quarles, J., and Circuit Judge Ashpord in place op Kemp, J., Absent.
    The defendants in error moved to dismiss the appeal and Writ of error of plaintiffs in error “for the reason that although more than twenty days have elapsed since the issuance of the writ .of error herein, the necessary papers have not been filed.” The petition for a writ of error was filed by plaintiffs in error on May 2, 1918, accompanied by assignments of error and a bond and on the same day a writ of error was issued out of this court. On June 4, 1918, the defendants in error interposed their motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs in error secured an order from a circuit judge directing the stenographer to prepare and furnish a transcript of the evidence. Neither the transcript nor the record in the case has been filed in this court nor has any application been made to this court or any justice thereof for further time within which to file the same. Mr. Yincent, of counsel for plaintiffs in error, presents an affidavit in which he attempts to justify the failure to furnish the transcript of evidence and which might warrant this court in overlooking the delinquency in that regard, but aside from the transcript no reason is given either in the affidavit or in the oral presentation of the matter which justifies or attempts to justify the failure to file with this court the pleading and other necessary papers within twenty days after the issuance of the writ of error. Paragraph 2 of Eule 1 of this court provides, “If the necessary papers are not filed in this court within twenty days after the issuance of a writ of error, perfecting of an appeal or allowance of a bill of exceptions or such further time as may be allowed by this court or a justice thereof the appeal may be dismissed for want of prosecution.”
    
      E. JR. Bevins submitted the motion without argument.
    
      E. Yincent contra.
   Per Ourimi.

The plaintiffs in error offering no excuse for having ignored the rule the motion is granted and the appeal and writ dismissed.  