Saturday press. [volume] (Honolulu, H.I.) 1880-1885, 1883-09-15
rur rnturtr ,o,rpo,rpst.
irgnseBis ~ tspHsrii Hs,i.ian ~ JmIDs
.iHstiH pud Ir"sept saHdfiou n igaIps.

IalluWing summary df the arguments en-
pln,si lB cpunsol In The acliun hfonghi 10y
The minister II The inicuuf io ftstain Mf
William tlowerlcw iiom laying ramwass On
llonoHlnn streets, which WIS argued bollfo
Imeo Anstn un tho yh instant, and submitted
on the complaint hnd ansWrr IuliIIshal in inii
Wy tho Press lasl Weet
Wy the ung " Iaipc Austin, the afeumen,
- lhr case nom The thr defendant siandpuinl
WHs hrsl submitted, and Mf Preston, the foun
~ iui defendant, sid, Va sulriauro, that hr
wuui submit 10 the nulirt ~ hia honor his
opinion ihni The minister NJ inteildt Wa psf
ieflly iHalihrl IA gtinp permission IN Nf
lluwtuleN Nv epnaiu,in iIamway, aud that the
aut'essm " ihp minister Whn iRd plyon tho
permission was huuai 10y bis pfedctessnta law
iultrs Nothing had he,nnlltgcinf ~ shuwnthai
lhc defendant did not intend 0f hid NOT acted
IN 'nlite good 9Th, and with nn nlonliun ~
hi7 l"H Z" take advantage ~ naufp the tighis
~ The minister " The interior lhe minister
NJ the iHionnf Was the officer who had
charge II The Internal improvements nfthe enun
ny IN his department was placed The cnnltnl
over tunda, hddg'a and sfreie, ho hid the fiRhi
iu ntiloi The anspcnsiun ~ tmyol un DESIGNATED
streets, and could giant The permission w tear
~ roads ~ block streets. Tho minister Is ths
only nm who has such authority anil II was
ha place and IN his power to nhntc hnv ohstpic.
ton lhnt may hscpne puhc nuisance "a
much - u was In the power ~ private parties
o sock fcdnss lnl private injuries, The dc.
londnni has acted openly and hunomhly, hav.
ng obtained permission from three persons
bciuW proceeding with his Investments, and
The government was knowingly and openly
aware oi his intentions Hut IN the othc,
hand, loul AZ The shuillug and ignomneo of
lnw displayed 10y the minister NJ lhr interior
and his legal advisers, This office, writes lo
Mt flowcnlew aud tells him nplhinp can
he done without obtaining the sanction III the
pfiVy councll.' What nonsense Nothing la
The law ~ The country tu cnuso such q state.
mont The minister ~ The interior had ihr
power and ganled the permission Then
notice The t,ckey ,esorlcd ~ by the pfoduc,
lion ot the dmlI ~ . new agreement, which
was sent to Mi flowerlew This hcsh nppliea
lion was most disg,aceful one ITO nyoid The
payment ol y hve cent fare a liat oi dead heads
who should br entitled Ia nee passage was
piepaifed, clause most disgraeeful, cminaling,
nA The defendant has rghl Ia suppose II did
lfom minister ol his majusiy's government.
II was not until after The defendant declined Ia
sign this document that the Injunction was an,
Piled inf there was no intention displayed Ia
stop the progress ni the proposed work until
On The Monday after. Notice the shuiiling
Tie hR attempt to put oi on account of not
being placed before the pnyy council Moth
ing ia stated IN the bill why the work should
'1e stopped, not detrimental Ia public good, IN
fact interfering with nobody and would be
benefit 10 the government, ns We would be moro
likely To then have better roads then At pre-
sent II the permission asked for by The de.
lebdant prcsnged the Introduction oi steam
railway, should then have said thai The minister
Of the interior had no right 10 grant pernia
sion in' that which might be well termed
public nuisance as Is esnmped Ia the railway
now laid along lictelania street, and i1r the
establishment ol which permission was granted
by the minister Of the interior. Ihe rails of
that road As laid are public nuisance, and
ihosc are the works which the ailomey,genc.
ml should cnloln aud which he should compel
la bc taken up. Nothing has been shown on
the bill produced OF in the law why this inluno
ton should nc maintained IN fact there has
been = conccalnenl oi the true facts, and The
defendant pmysihal the injunction he dlsolycd
Mr.. c. ". Ashford acting Tor the attorney
general, argued in support Of the complaint
substantially as follows The speaker thought
the ease hinged on Minister Iiuah's letter, that
that officer having given authority which he
did not possess nullited the act and the min,
istci had not the power claimed. Nj. Ash.
lotd quoted from the civil code, section "a
and I67, relative to the duties and powers oi
The minister oi interior. lie also quoted
from Idih n. y. Rcpous page 500, case Of
pavia VS. Mayor OF New York 27th N. Y.
Reports MiIlhau vs sharp; i7th liarbaI p ass
and others, The counsel spoke at some length
and strongly in favor ol the hill being sustained
Mr. Preston closed The arguments and claim.
cd that person cannot Of himself come before
Il court oi equity and asks that his own acts,
committed by his own free will, be declared
null and void. In this case n minister has
given q lawful permission and by such, IN.
duccd the defendant 10 incur heavy expenses,
now the grantof comes before the couu and
himself oliurs the excuse that he han no aulho.
iily. The learned gentleman quoted largely
from authorities To support the points advanced
by him.
Ills honor then took the case under advise.
mcnl.
rIIE DECISION.
The decision was rendered ON Monday last
and IS as follows
Section 80 Of the Civil Code says The minis.
ter OF the interior shall have the charge ol all
government property whatsoever not expressly
placed in the charge OF some other officer.
The government has property in the pub
the custody Of the plaintiff under Section 80.
Section 40 Of the civil code provides that
the minister Of the interior shall be aecounta.
bic for the preservation and safe keeping Of
the government property, and II shall bc his
duty To prosecute any person injuring, trcspas.
sing upon, OF wronglully taking the same.
The defendant threatened to go on one or
more OF the public highways Of the city OF Ilo-
nolulu and tear them up ior the purpose Of es-
tablishing street railway. This Il accom-.
plishe'i, without right, would be permancn,
and irrcparablc ,rcspass and injury TO the
properly OF the government in the public
streets, and the plaintiff had full power, and II
was his duty, il the defendant proposed 10 TO
do, wihou, right, TO bring this action to re.
strain him from so acting. think therefor
that the action was property brought by the
plaintiff.
The second question is, had the defendant
any right to establish street railway in the
streets of Honolulu OF any part Of them'
say upon the facts, think not.
Briefly, those essential facts are that the
minister OF foreign affairs and attorney general
al interim called upon the defendant. and
after some conversation, gave defendant to un-
derstahd that Ills Majestys Government would
help the defendant, to carry out his scheme for
laying horse lramways in the streets Of Homo.
lulu and the suburbs thereof. That the minis
ter of the inferior had charge Of the matter, to
whom defendant should apply, and that the
matter would he fasorably represented TO such
minister.
Thcreupon the defendant applied to thelhen
minister Of the interior. Mr.. John t. Bush in
writing, who answered in writing. and to
which the defendant replied in wiring.
II the minister of the interior hal authority
to do as he did as shown by his letter to the
that letter and the defendants reply TO il con
stiiuied valid contract which would authorize
the defendant to proceed, as he threatened
TO in this case. The defendant claims that the
minister had such authority, and il SO, then the
minister has granted to the deieedani per