The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1884-01-09
SUPREME CoURT-IN EQUITY
Ar cHlXnEns.
Before Mecully, vice Chancellor.

Before Nccully, vice Chancellor.
WIN. R. Castle, S. B. Dole and W. o. Smith VS..
His E1ceIleney John N. KapenAs Minister Of
Finance.
Monday January 18th, 1854.
His Honor delivered the following judgment:
III THE COURT.
Upon the foregoing Headings, the respondent
claims that the bill shoiiid be dismissed and the
temporary writ vacated for the reason that the
sworn snsEer directly and clearly denies all the
equities Of the bill; and rests his case.
The petitioner controversy is that the answer
does not so meet the bill, but is syasive, argu-
nentative, and in some parts irresponsive They
refcr 70 the answer in the matter OF the mandAmns
betveen the same parties, decided by the Court on
the ID instant, wherein the respondent admitted
that he was about TO issue bonds iof certain sver
coin and claimed that such issue eonformed to the
law; and say that his sworn answer IN this case,
DENYING that he ever or at all was about to make
such issue, conflicts with that answer. 10 which
the AttorneyGeneral replies that all the ayerments
in the answer are to be taken 10 be OF matters
existing at the inception Of this case; that since
the answer in the first case made, there has
been decision Of the Court pronouncIng an issue
Of bonds, for the equivalent then proposed, to be
Illegal; which now makes 1t impossible Tor the
respondent to contemplate such issue.
Looking at the answer in this case standing by
itself, and considering that the information and
belief Of the petitioners as 10 the Minister 3
intended act, must relate TO and from after the
time when the MandAmus which had been imposed
on the respondent dissolved; 1t appears TO
meet clearly and to deny fully the act charged to
be intended. The respondent denies absolutely
that he intends to issue bonds for certain or any
silver coin not OF the value OF Z. ), gold coin OF
It's equivalent, or that he is now or any time At
all about TO issue bonds except authorized BY
law. BY the pleadings the law must be taken to
mean specially the Loan Act Of 1882. Oh. XIX,
That statute has now been interpreted by this
Court There spondent in that case made answer
according to his views Of the law in respect to par
value equivalent to U. S, gold, etc, which were
overruled by the Court. His present answer must
be taken to be according TO the law it has since
been determined by Judicial authority,
The law as TO the dissolution Of injunction upon
answer docs not seem TO be in controversy. will
take it as cited by petitioner counsel in Bar
bour's Chancery Practise page $40.
AN injunction will not be dissolved on the
coming in Of the answer, unless the defendants
positively deny all the equity Of the bill And il
seems that even when ali the equity Of the bill is
denied by the answer, it is not a matter Of course
TO dissolve the injunction, the granting and
continuing INDUCTION always rests in the sound
discretion Of the Court, to be governed by the
nature Of the case. The statement Of the defend
ant must be at least creditable. Any evasion in
not responding to the charges in the bill, or an
extreme improbabiliiy in the statement OF the
defendant, will induce the Court to retain the
The petitioners allege, on information and
belief, an intention to do certain act The re-
spondent makes oath, broadly and particularly,
that he has no such intention. The petitioners
counsel says that when respondent denies that he
intends to issue bonds for coin Of the value Of 50
per cent. Of U. S. gold coin, he evades the allega
ton that he is about to issue them for coin Of
about So per cent. / cannot think that by such
refinement and oasuIstry ono Of the Kings Minis
tiers, answering by the advice Of the Attorney
General and other responsible counsel, attempts
TO impose upon the Court, in violent inconsistency
with bis several denials That he Intends violate
the law.
The statement Of this respondent is 'at least
credible" There is no extreme improbability"
in it. The Court will take the answer as declaring
in good faith that the respondent is not about to
Issue bonds sin any other manner or for any
other moneys, than is provided for by law as
construed by the Court.
The bill is therefore dismissed and the tenn
Porary writ granted ez pdyte writ dissolved.
LAWRENCE McCULEr, J.
January 7th, 1884.
A. S. Hartwell for Compliments.
PHul Neumann, Attorney General, and L. Pres
ton Of Counsel, for Defendant.