" Territory v. Kunimoto, 37 Haw. 591, 596. This court recently in Cragen v. Halm, 38 Haw. 522, in reiterating the inherent character and office of writ of error as a vehicle for review noted: "* * * the entire record is brought up, and the judgment of the appellate court is such as the facts and law warrant as shown by the entire case." The motion does not present any issue necessitating a determination of the effect of any acts of commission or omission on the part of either or both of the parties causing or resulting in the present state of the record.

We have also held that a motion for new trial, filed after entry of judgment, does not prevent the running of the time within which a writ of error to review said judgment may be issued. ( Cragen v. Halm, 38 Haw. 522, decided May 4, 1950.) By analogy the same effect should follow an appeal to the circuit court for mitigation of sentence.