The Hawaiian gazette., 1889-12-17
Supreme Court of the Hawaiian
Islands-In Chambers.
THE HAWAIIAN GOVERNMENT VS..
BISHOP & COMPANY.

Bill in Equity for Discovery-De-
n1uvTer.
BEFORE MIR. JUSTICE DOLE.
Decision.
The bill recites substantially that
G.. A. Brown is the assessor for the
first taxation division, which cor
responds with the Island of Oahu,
and that the defendants, as bank
ers, made in July last an incom-
plete, defective and insufficient re-
turn of property held in custody by
them in the said taxation division.
The bill further recites that it is
necessary for the proper perform
ance of the duties of the said as
SCISSOR and the due and proper
assessment of property for taxation
in said taxation division, and more
especially the property of defend
ants within the same that the de-
PENDANTS shall furnish and disclose
to the plaintiff full, true and par
ticular statement of the deposits in
their bank, and the names of the
depositors and the amounts of the
several deposits standing to the
credit of the depositors respectively
on the first day of July last; and
that such information was requested
of the defendants and refused by
them, and can be obtained by the
plaintiff only through relief and
discovery in court of equity.
The bill prays that defendants
may answer the interrogatories at
tached, which correspond with the
recitals of the bill.
The defendants demurred tC the
bill.
The plaintiff claims to be en-
titled to the discovery prayed for,
for the sake of enabling the assessor
to properly perform his general
duties, to wit: the assessment of
property on the Island of Oahu,
and especially to properly assess
the property of defendants.
The defendants contend that the
statute gives the plaintiff no right
to a discovery and that the allega-
tions of the bill do not show any
equitable right.
The statute calls upon every per-
son to state in his return moneys
belonging to him deposited with
bank. If on an appeal from an as
sessment, the question should arise
as to the taxpayers existing deposit
in bank-on the first day of July,
the Government, if entitled to
know, which is doubtful, would
undoubtedly have the right to SUBJ
pena the banker to testify on this
point. But to say that on general
grounds and to facilitate the work
of an. assessor, the Government is
entitled to the private information
Of banker in regard to the conf
Dental relations between him and
his clients or customers, and this
when there are no pending proceed
ings requiring such information, is
probably going too far.
AS to the right of the plaintiff to
have the discovery prayed for, for
the proper assessment of the de-
PENDANTS property, doubt whether
any such right exists, certainly it
is not conferred by the statute but
l feel that 1 need not go exhaust
lively into this question, because
am satisfied that if the information
desired was obtained by the plain
tiff it could not facilitate the assess
ment of the defendants property,
for these reasons: When ordinary
deposits are made in a bank of de-
post, the property in the money
passes to the bank, which becomes
the debtor of the deposition.
(Doityles Us. Ptgnir Bank, 6 Hill
297, and Commercial Bank rs.
Hughes, II Wend. "a. Newmark's
Bank Deposits, S, 10y. The banker
is therefore liable for the taxes
upon all that part of such deposits
which is in his possession or con-
troll on the first day of July, but as
he may have loaned or otherwise
invested portion of such deposits
before the first day of July, any
statement Of his account with his !
depositors as of the first day of
July, would be without significance
as to the extent of his personal
property upon that day liable to a
property tax, and could not facili-
tate the assessment of the defend
ants property; neither could such |
statement, upon the same principle
of law, aid in the general assess
ment of property in the taxation
division mentioned.
The demurrer will therefore be
allowed and an order signed to that
effect.
w. A. Whiting for plaintiff; F.
nj. Hatch for respondent.