The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1884-01-12
BILL FOE INJUNCTION.

Finance.
January 9Th, 1884
Bill. INJUNCTION.
Mr.. A. ). Hartwel for plaintiffs.
His Excellency Paul Neumann, Attorney Gene
raj, and Mr.. 7. Preston for defendant.
Mr.. Hartwell read the prayer for Injunction Of
which the following is the substance.
That your petitioners residents citizens and
tax payers in said Honolulu, and such ent-
tied 10 the relief heinaftcr prayed that John NJ.
Kapena. Minister Of Finance, defendant hereto is
a. Your orators are informed and believe ana so
aver on their information and belief now abou, to
issue large number to wit: hundred and
thirty thousand dollars, of Hawaiian Government
Bonds purportins to be authorized by the Act en-
titled an Act to authorize national loan, and to
define to what uses such loan shall be devoted, ap-
proved the fifth day Of August, \. d. 1882, said
bonds being by their terms and pursuant to said
Act payable principal and interest in L. S. gold
coin its equivalent; and that said defendant is
about issue said bonds for certain silver coins
not of the value of Z. S. gold or its equivalent,
but only of about 50 per cent of the value of I. s.
/ gold coin, wherefore your petitioners submit that
such proposed issue of said bonds would be illegal
and unauthorized by law. And your petitioners
further that they have requested said defend
ant to issue said bonds only for l. S. gold coin or
! its equivalent and that he refuses to accede to
/ such request.
! Wherefore your petitioners pray that injunc-
/ ton do issue out Of this honorable Court directed
! to said defendant enjoining and restraining him
until further order of this said Chief Justice from
issuing such bonds of silver coins aforesaid,
for any excepting only [. $. gold coin its equiv
/ aent, and that process do issue according TO the
practice Of this honorable Court directed TO said
/ defendant and summonuS him to appear and
/ show why such injunction shall not be made
! permanent, and your petitioners further pray for
/ such further relief as may be appropriate.
| Mr. Neumann read the answer of which the fol-
| lowing is summary
Now comes the defendant John NJ. Kapena and
| answering the bill of plaintiffs.
Denies that he is al any time ever
| at all about to issue large number, to-wit: One
! hundred and thirty thousand dollars any num-
/ Der of Hawaiian Government Bonds purPortinG to
| be authorized by the Act mentioned in the COM
plaint or described in the complaint or any other
! bonds wha atsoever for certain any silver coin
not of the value of T. s. gold coin its equivalent
of the value of 81 per cent. of o. s gold coin or
that he is any time or at all about to issue
! any bonds whatsoever authorized to be issued by
| law in any other manner for any other moneys
than is provided for by law. And defendant denies
that he is about or intends or threatens or mas IN
| tended or threatened to issue any of the bonds
mentioned in the complaint for any other moneys
in any other manner :4idn as is provided IN sad
law, to-wt: Not below par and for gold coin OF
| the L. s. or its equivalent. And defendant denies
! that he has refused to issue such bonds only for
! [. s. gold coin or its equivalent. 1&CO
Wherefore the defendant prays to be hence dis
missed without delay and that he have and re-
cover from plaintiffs his costs in this behalf in
| Cured
! He (Mr. NJ claimed that on the pleading he was
entitled to have the writ vacated. He further
claimed that the bill did not aver that defendant
is Minister of Finance neither did 1t aver that the
complainants had any interest in the matter be-
| fore the Court.
Mr.. HartweIl argued that the averments of the
! hill were sufficient and wOuld proceed to proofs
| He asked the Attorney-Genera to now accept no.
| tice TO produce q certain contract.
| The Attorney-Ceneral contended that any con
| tract made by the Minister is imma terlaI, as he
AYERS under oath that he is not about to issue
| bonds contrary to law. He further claimed that
! the writ be vacated on the pleadings.
Mr. Hartwell argued that he had the right to
! put in testimony afidavits against the answer
1t is discretionary with the Court whether to dis
solve or hold the injunction upon the denials made
in the answer, and the old English rule, that the
Injunction should be dissolved upon the coming in
of the answer, has been amended and modified.
He considered the answer, in some particulars, to
be contradictory and evasive and at variance with
mus
The Attorney General objected to any reference
being made to former cases, as in this case the
! Minister has based his acts upon the decision of
| the Court in the Mandamus case.
! Mr.. Hartwel proceeded TO compare the answer
| in this case with the answer in the Mandamus case
The answer in this does not deny that defend
ant is about to receive silver worth about 80 per
cent of U. S. gold coin He contented that fur
ther testimony should be allowed.
| The Attorney-General again claimed that the
pleadings end the case. The averments OF the
| answer responsive TO the bill and are suti-
| cient.
Mr.. Hartwen was Of opinion that the answer
here is consistent with the intention expressed in
the answer in the Mandamus case, and the COM
painants desire to introduce testimony respecting
that intention the denial of such intention made
in the in this not being sufficient. The
/ ground could be covered by the defendant amend
ing the
The Attorney General declined to make any
amendment whatever in the
Mr.. Hartwell said that if the Court will decide
the pleadings, that an injunction was necessary
to restrain the Minister from issuing the bonds,
the complainants will proceed no further he be-
lieved it was English practice that where Manda-
mus or injunctions were applied for against high
public officers process was taken out
The Attorney-General said they would like to
have His Honors decision soon possible.
The Court took time to consider its judgment
and promised to render the same soon posi-
ble.
The Court adjourned at II A.
Monday January 7th, 1884.
His Honor delivered the following Judgment
THE COURT.
Upon the foregoing pleadings, the respondent
claims that the bill should be dismissed and the
temporary writ vacated, for the reason that the
sworn answer directly and clearly denies all the
equities of the bill; and rests his case.
The petitioners controversy is that the
does not so meet the bill, but is evasive, argu-
mentative, and in some parts irresponsive. They
refer to the answer in the matter of the mandamus
between the same parties, decided by the Court'on
the I'd instant, wherein the respondent admitted
that he was about to issue bonds for certain silver
coin and claimed that such issue conformed 70 the
! law: and saw that his sworn answer in this case,
denving that he ever or at all was about to rake
such issue, conflicts with that answer To which
the Attorney General replies that all the averments
in the answer to be taken to be of matters
existing at the inception of this case that since
the answer in the first case made, there has
been a decision of the Court pronouncinS an issue
of bonds for the equivalent then proposed, to be
illegal; which now makes 1t impossible for 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 TO the Minister'S