The Hawaiian gazette., 1885-07-29
Aalraiian 6aztttr.
wYpNHSnAN, July % lSSS
Sup-~-se ceart q tAs HawaaiAn IslAna'--
In Equity.

s.p-~sae csars e tAs HswaalAa I.lAns'--
aESsaey.
Tax wAsANAr CoNrrANr vs.. fHx RAvAiiNN
Rrii rslxrRoNr coNrASS.
g-s-s,s ~ CAss;sli'y .'s''s,
rhsrs is = h;n ia equio Ter ar islasesiSs I'
rrssrsir The defendant ecDpaay rvs, rNtas ,',
inS or stcpripE rlaiutits ec1aGntsaHsa VIZ
ard fan servicc % = trlephcee and tF'ra esiss-
= ,rt,er,. :, law ies he plainsias uss thereot
| re hill sllesrS hat "a The sSsd 81 MANA
ISIS. the aeseDaan, corporation eeing desirNes
| I, e.,ahlish lice Il telepheoic ec4launfeA-
| $50 h.twser as esstrsi ossce in heeolRle sad
re S,ssrscs e waisrse, applied &c The PLAIN
81 e,-s,ratScn % cbtain rs ec.sess Ter esSAh-
T.hi,. ara extending such lire ever The
| nl.insiTs lard IL The said district arc ASSIST
| $50 IN r,easy 3 6efrsy the expense thereof
| ana q r.er 81 ASSIST il The lzhog thereoi Aus
,seFed The rlsiusid % place and keep TIVE tele-
! r,A,,;, irstrr-,snts upor the plaintiffs pian-
| tsti,- :. said waisnss and C keep The sane
| n communication With the defendants sysiea
| q telephcnes ara . raAkv ~ charge mr. ore
| Il sai4 instruments c. fog rs use 10 Coz
rsc,ica With tie defendants tslspeonic sNsiera
Tie plaintiff accepted said eseE Sn5 ra'd wv
= Defendants IN consideration thersoS Snd
reformed its part q the oontrasi ard has
ever since paid fer eae q TIE said instruments
A. sic meath ard 70 charge has eesa inaes
fc- TIE uss q TIE ctheS instrument ns1i r.
es,tly s,s row. Defendant tAreAssns 70 re
/ r-,ys Re ere cf saiS Instruments he,etctoye
1 fu-uishsa frpe q ehargv and 70 step pl.intts
i,,,-,rsricAiicz tberewith naless Plalnsia shall
i ray a rsorshly reasal or sum fcr the use
| thereog ara resciras The ssrssDer. by Which
cue iass-u-eu. vas 70 he kep. for plaintiffs
| u,e IN conrsciica with the selsphOaic system
free Il eharse. The bill alleges shat great
| i-eczvsuisaee ard harm uccd he esaseG BY
| ths removal q tie Instrument and SueIaiis
| .hs. The Geisa2sus shoali be restrained Re ic-
| irrcsica the-sfrer and fron bringing actions
q suits a. lAv for the use hereafter.
ne t;il IS iezurred C generally Ter wsni
Ct eQeir.
| NJ. H.lch for defendant. Al the Esoss. the
! segr7iaS threatens Is disccnGnre q Volun-
txry service uuless plaintiff PAYS SIC month
ta- L. II here IS a contract 70 this elect,
p'AadE can be rsccapscSsi BY an acli0a a.
law fcr is breach. The hill alleges merely
Inconvenience ard harm, rot irTeparable dam
axe. Ccarts Of equity should rot BE APPEALED
e, to esishlish = legal ocasracl By the tele-
Phc0e pad for the plaintiff Is IN eoo0eeslon
With tie telephcss system.
4 $ Hxrtweu ard E Prestor fcr the plai1-
as. E9si;y Las Jurisdiction IN this case %
avoid = multiplicity q suits, as IN case u
tzilrre 10 pay the tax Of sic per Hlooth, lie
6sfsrdsn; uisbt brios a. aetie1 every mouth.
The 6eis56Rn. IS \ corporation with lH'isec
liability and unable 70 respond in damages.
Parties are ecupe.lable In equity 20 sbite BY
their cco,rac.s. The demurrer admits The sI-
is,s1ee cS = contract Kerr On lplunciioos
Chap. =. Pcnsrcy's &c. Jnr. 2. Az. The
$40 per zcgsh which plaintiff cray be ocC'-
PEELED 70 pSy Is Hos The cnly damage. Plain
NJ has sive1 The nigh. % carry his wires ever
1 IL lkni ka3 hKs pLii s500 10 as5lsf. a19 II
{ sSsE55sFEssSg g ey WEy GE Eg7S Il u 62gz 011
IrirPbc1r fTrr, Gks SNssssS eNaHoE bR eoEl-
| puird Pi1i7.E has pad It's lccey saS DE-
tsnd1ns uRinIIius It's lines ever plaintiffs land
fcr its cwu becsss- Should plaintiff sue fer
BREACH q contract or wait ru.I defendants
eh1rts- expires z16 s1e fer the lc1r srm'
Thsre shc1li be decree for specific perform
arse ard ! peype.ual injunction 70 restrain
tie trsach-
By tie Court
I have scre GlSrully II 4scertai1ing the
| equitable principles upcu which this h5l car
| rest, TIE bill does act allege the peo6ercy
| q = sgi; a. i1v e determine the legal rights
CO the plaintiff. The igiunctior prayed fer e
act iasericcEtcry and n aid Of the legal rishi.
having fer its object the protection Of property
trC1 irrrpNrabie 6a1zSe pendJng The trial
| Tie bill Is ncs constructed upon this !heory.
| The hil does not ecntain allegations showing
| thar -1ltiplicisy OF scits is Threatened or
| vuzlt rssalE II the injunction IS not granted.
Bat L seems that Il the telephcns company
coverEzted and agreed that The plaintiff sho1ld
u = =. =
free CT charge, l. wc1ld be equivalent 70 !
| covenant 1og % remove tie sane.
| Bispkz1 II his Principles Of Eqzity Sec.
4el, SAYS, sThe remedy By injunction 70 res
| .rsi1 he breach q negative cuyscAnts nay be
sad . furnish the complement TO relief BY
specific pszfcrna1ce."
"A1 z1-ulElvs ccYeuAa. Is Al asreeue1:
whereby a nan undertakes hat something
shall &c Go1ss and upon tie breach Of such }
ccygrazs- and cPou proper case Of equitable
Interference beng zl1de cat, tie remedy Is BY
biIl fer specific performance On the other
hz-G. b. J negative ccYsHang, the cuysuznseI
/ promises that Sg-sihL1g shall net Be 6c1e and
therefore the relief appropriate 70 bzeach q
| s-ch i cuE.racE Is N lnlUnctiou.
'I1Ig1cLicus Z restrain the breach Of mega
/ i've ccvg181ls are Issued VIXEN the ccusraet
and the ihreat.1sd breach are clearly shgvr
| z1d VIXEN the recovery Of damages AZ Law
Bc1it furnish II irsfegl nate redress While
| tie .hecCy Upcu Which this relief l. based TIA
e preventing lrrspa-able Injury, yet the Cour
viii net enter into nice Discrimination IS t.
tie extent Of the dsaage-r
Kerr &C l1jCzcricns ?. SIS says There vas
| G1ili recently much dcEht Epon the zuihcrities
whether the Court EoGli enforce By fuiurc.
ton tie negative part q AZ az-gcnsu. cra-
tIi1i7Z beth zzruztiTs AID negative stipuia.
1Cus Unless the Affirmative part cE the agree
1leut WIS CT szch nature that Il could B,
specifically enforced BY decree
The leading azthority IN f1vur CT the powe
5 Lazllcy - WayazT D. u. and G. 6G4
and Lord s.. Leonar5s established the uriuci
PIE that TIE Court nay enforce the rs:gativl
part CT n agreenen. By Injunction, zl.hr1zi
tie E1--ullsivs part i CT such nature that !
ca11rt he specifically enforced by decree.
Here the defendant engaged to sing At plain
us theatre and uoc 70 sing at any oshs
theatre The Judge rsstrzi1ed her fruo sing
a1g Il any ether theatre than the plzi1sizs
though be crcld not compel her to sing i
Pl1irt1SE theatre
L seems = ne that equity las irris;ictiol
&c restrain the bcsach CT the Might've cuTeu1u
lct % remove The tsigphcuic instrument
Bat think the bill Is detective IL the -au
Ct an allegation e irrspz-zbIs tuTurv. and /
TIA. the agreement CT covenant Dot % rsuoT
ne instrument Is HnE cleariy salad -
VII sustain the demurrer viii leave I
a1e1d vitti1 ten DAYS
A :. Ha-twsu AID Z. Preston for plIiutif
z. n Hates sc- lsssendans. ~
HcuoIglu, July Is 1855.
S1r--ass Cert e rs Ha-zssau Esizzas-
In E4zssy. ~ -
In. s-GEzyaArat s CO. vs.. IL Errra srr.l