The Hawaiian gazette., 1869-08-25

OF the court petitlOn Tor process, which
may be in the following form:n form ofcom-
plant for wrongfully taking and converting).
This section is under the title of factions
upon unliquidated Demands and is nearly
word for word like the Statute of 1s47. The
Statute of 1s4S, Providing summary pro-
eeeding TO recover possession Of land in GER
tain cases" amended by Act approved June
s, 1865, so as to include forfeitures, reads as
follows: "Sec. L Whenever any lessee or
tenant of any lands or tenements, or any
person holding under such lease or tenant,
shall hold possession Of such lands or tene-
ments without right, after the determination
Of such tenancy either by effiux of time, or
by reason of any forfeiture, under the con-
ditions or covenants in any such lease; or If
tenant by parole, BY notice TO quit of at
least ten days, the person entitled to such
premises may be restored to the possession
thereof Ia the manner hereinafter provided
Then follow provisions for a hearing before
a Police or District Justice, for the issuing
of a warrant of removal, annuliEg the rela-
tion of landlord and tenant, and for staying
proceedings in actions for rent, on payment
of rent and costs.
The amended Act of 1865 appears to
cover this exact case. The citation from
Taylor, (s7lS, Land. and To has ref
erence 10 statutes which contain no pro-
vision for forfeltures. The Act includes not
only void, but voiddble leases, for it provides
mode for canceling the lease and annulling
the relation of landlord and tenant Nor is
a resort to these summary proceedings
Inconsistent with an action for damages,
although an action brought under either of
these statutes, during the term of the lease,
would affirm the tenancy to the date of the
alleged act of forfeiture. Sargent VS.. Smith,
u Cray, 4a6; Stuyvesant vs.. Davis, 9 Paige,
42T
1t is general rule, where the common
law prevails, that statute remedy is merely
unless the common law remedy
is expressly or implicitly repealed. TCofin
VS.. Field, Z Cush., S5S; Brown VS. Castles,
IL 10, 5 and S; Burden VS.. Crocker, 10 Pick,
$50; Golden VS.. Eldred, Is Mass, %; Rex
VS.. Jackson, Cowp., 277; Yorke VS.. Chap
man, 10 Ad. and E., 2O9; ADAMS VS.. Richard
son, 4S n. H., 212; Wood vs. u S, I6 Pet,
1863; Shaftesbury VS.. RUSSELL B. and c., &C. ]
But if a statute confers right, and an ade-
luate. means of protecting it, the statutory
remedy is exclusive, and if the enforcing
tribunal is specified, that, alone, can be re-
sorted to. wiley vs.. Yale, 1 Met, $50;
Tower vs.. City of Boston, 10 Cush., 2S5:
Hazen VS.. Essex Co., IL Cush., AT; Flagg
rs. City of Worcester, 10 Gray, COL The
,ase of Comth. ", johnson, Mass, 80, was
hus: By statute of 1871, interior Courts
lad Jurisdiction ola certain grade of offenses;
| subsequent statute gave the Supreme Court
"of every crime whatsoever that
S against the public good" The Court
here, referring to the English rule, that
,nly by express negative words or necessary
Implication, would the higher Court lose
said, swords similar TO these
AVE, in this State, by long continued, un-
'roken series of presidents and practice,
'een uniformly construed to exclude the
original Jurisdiction of this Court" But in
>omth. VS.. Hudson, IL Gray, 81, Shaw, c. j.,
aid, at is no answer to say that another
tribunal has jurisdiction; for that is com
non. 1t is, in such case, concurrent juris-
lection, whether so called in the statute or
ot," there being "no words indicating that
should be exclusive, nor repeating any
pecific statute"
In Williams VS.. Potter, 2 Bar, Sl6, it was
ED that landlords remedies under statute
n force when the lease was executed, were
ot affected by the requirements of subse-
Dr. non-payment of rent
In Rochester VS.. Rehoboth, Q Eos, 367, the
'ourt said, "But we have never held that
ecause justice of the peace may entertain
lrisdiction to the extent of 1888, the Com
ION Pleas sre thereby ousted of Jurisdiction
all matters below that sum, but unless the
iatute confne the original Jurisdiction to
Magistrate, our practice has been to permit
arty TO bring his suit in the Common Pleas,
Ne so chose, but at the risk of having his
Osts limited to those recoverable before a
lstice of the peace. In Flanders VS.. At
inson, is n. H, the same Court declined
riginal jurisdiction of matters cognizable
! lower court. These decisions, however,
eDerally rest on statute or constitutional
mutations. This Court has jurisdiction "of
Il cases in law or equity, y whether
ne same be brought before it by original
rit, by appeal, or otherwise" Civ Code, |
&c. $50. The Police Justice has exclusive |
-iginal jurisdiction, where the amount shall
Of exceed two hundred dollars. Civ. Code, |
&C. S9S; amended by Act, 1868. That amount
to be ascertained by the adj dlmnun laid
the complaint, and not by the actual
mount of the debt or damages. Hapgood
. Doherty, s Gray, 1913. The dd dimnunl,
this case was one thousand dollars, al
ough the evidence would entitle the
aintiff, if he recovered, to merely nominal
images [Appleton VS.. Fuller, Gray, 1861
be costs would be regulated by the Court,
the defendant appeared to be unnecessarily
objected to more expensive proceedings.
,rhaps the plaintiffs claim for mesne profits
light be affected by not resortiug to sum-
airy proceedings for an earlier decision In
ew of this protection against expense or
lay, we are of the opinion that, by the
thorities, this action would lie, and that
idence of actual damage is not requisite.
Was notice to quit essentiali Our statutes
9 silent upon this point, except in requir-
2 ten days notice to terminate tenancy
parole. By referring to cases brought in
is Court, the uniform practice appears to