The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1884-03-19

Aud every additional mile over the abuyr unmrI
stations -haII be charged extra to each mile
SEVENTH
The undersigned have fully authorized
Mr.. Smith the engineerregularly employed
in the service of this work to concur and
agree with your E1cellency any further
matters that are not expressed in this
memorandum
have the honor to be, sir. your most
obedient servant,
Tlireeah- That this defendant declined
to sign such document and caused notice
to be given as aforesaid of his intention to
commence work.
All which dOings and pretenses on the
part of the plaintiff this defendant submits
are contrary to equity and good conscience,
and preiudicial to the rights of this de
PENDANT and tend to subvert His Msiesty's
Government and the good faith thereof
and the proper respect therefor
EDWARD PRESTON.
Cecil BROwS,
Solicitors and of Counsel for defendant
Decision Of tie Court by -Ia,tia, J.
The defendant first objects, in abate
ment, that the plaintiff is not the proper
party to bring this action
believe he Is.
Section 80 OF the Civil Code says the
Minister Of the Interior shall have the
charge, custody and supervision of all gov
eminent property whatsoever, not express
" placed in the charge Of some other Off
Ger
The government has property IN the
public streets of Honolulu, and the prop
erty is in the custody Of the plaintiff, IN
der Section 80
Section 20 Of the Civil Code provides
that the Minister of the Interior shall be
accountable for the preservation and safe
keeping Of the government property, and
it shall be his duty to prosecute any per
son injuring. tfespassing upon, Or wrong
fully taking the same.
The defendant threatened to 90 upon
one or more of the public highways Of the
city of Honolulu and tear them up for the
purpose Of establishing a street railway
This. If accomplished without night, would
BE- a permanent and irTeparal,le trespass
and injury TO the property Of the govern
ment, in the public streets, and the plain
tiff had full power. and it was his duty. II
the defendant proposed to act without
right, to bring this action to restrain him
from so acting.
| think therefore that the action was
properly brought by the plaintiff
The second question Is had the defen
dant right to establish a street railway
in the streets Of Honolulu or any part Of
them
1 say upon the facts, think not
Briefly those essential facts are that the
Minister Of Foreign Affairs and Attorney
General ID iaterim, called upon the defen
daut. and after some conversation gave
defendant to understand that His Ma
jestr's Government would help the defen
dant to carry out his scheme for laying
horse tramways IN the streets Of Honolulu
and the suburbs thereof. That the Minis
ter Of the Interior had charge Of the mat
ter to whom defendant should apply, and
that the natter would be favorably repre-
sented to such minister.
ThereupUn the defendant applied to the
then Minister of the Interior. Mr.. John T.
Bush. IN writing as above quoted who an
swered IN writing as above quoted and to
which the defendant replied In writing az
above quoted
If the Minister Of the Interior had an
thority to do what be did as shown By his
letter to the defendant. Of July 30 1888, it
may be that-that letter and the defendants
reply to It constituted a 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 if 20. then the
minister has granted to the defendant q
perpetual and exclusive night at his option,