The Hawaiian gazette., 1889-10-08
Supreme Court of the Hawaiian
Islands-In Equity. at Cham
bers.
HAWAIIAN GOVERNMENT vs.. HA-
wAIIAN TRAMwAYs Co.
Demurrer.
BSroRE MR.. JUsTICS DOLE.

Decision.
The defendants have demurre,
TO the bill of complaint for multi
fariousneSs in that it contains allie
cations in the nature Of petition
for writ of quo iudTrdnto, and ais
allegations upon which it prays 70
an injunction and a writ of manda
mus respectively.
This objection belongs to tina
class of cases where the several de
mandS of the bill are so inconsistent
with each other that the Court viii
not permit them to be litigated to,
gether on account mainly of the in,
convenience of so doing. The au-
thorities prefer to term such de-
feet In pleading a miSjoinder rathe-
than multifariouSneSs. (Cump6eil
rS. Mackdy, 1 Milne & Craig, 603).
The bill in this case alleges that
the Hawaiian Tramways Company
"A corporation, is possessed of the
franchise for constructing and oper-
ating street railways in Honolulu
conferred by Chap,er NNNIV. of
the Laws of 1884, Chapter NVIII.
of the Laws of 1886 and Chapter
XXIII. of the Laws of 1888, and
claims TO be possessed of the further
franchise relating TO street railways
in Honolulu, conferred by Chapter
LNI. of the Laws of 1883, but that
the plaintiff does not know whether
either of the defendants are pos
SeSSed thereof.
The biz further reeiteS the duties
Of the corporation in relation to the
construction of such street railways
As 10 grade, 6bstructing the streets
during the process of construction,
materials of grading between and
along the rails, kind of rails, etc,
and alleges several further obliga-
tiOns of the corporation, . il in fact
and law it be possessed of the priv
ileges and franchises conferred by
said Chapter LVI. Of the Laws of
1855"
The bill then recites the construc-
ton Of railroads upon the additional |
streets mentioned in the franchise |
Of the said statute of 1888, by the |
corporation, as well as upon the !
streets mentioned in the earlier
laws above referred TO; and charges
that in the construction of the work
on all Of the said streets the defend
ants have disregarded ii e require
ments of their franchise to the in
convenience of public traffic and to
the injury of public interests, and
specially charges that the additional
obligations required by the fran
chiSe of 1855 have been neglected.
The prayers of the bill are sub
stantially as follows:
Ist. That it may be decided
whether either of the defendants
was possessed of the franchise con-
ferred by the statute of 1883, at the
time the work of construction was
begun upon the streets mentioned
in such statute.
I'd. TIT if neither of the de-
fendents were then or are now pos
seSsed thereof, they may be COM
PEELED by mandatory injunction
TO remove such railways from the
sid streets, and restore the same
TO their former condition and to de-
sist fOm further Interference there
with.
Sd. That if the Court find either
Of the defendants to be possessed of
the said franch Sc, it shall command :
them to carry out its requirements
with regard to the said streets and
I'll other streets whereon thev have
constructed or are constructing or
intend to construct such street rail- {
ways, under peril of deprivation of {
uch additional franchise; shall en-
DIN defendants against construct {
ng and maintaining such railways !
lpOn any but the existing or legal f
grade of streets and bridges, or
placing or operating such railways /
% as to interfere with street drain i
Ige: shall decree the railway on ?
3eretania street to be a public nui- :
ance and compel the defendants to ?
emOve the same, and restore the :
aid street to its original condition, :
nd desist from all further railway
obstruction thereon except flush '
With its existing OF legal grade
hall order defendants to replace y
ertain read mate ,ial deposited by
hem on certain streets, with other
cad material as shall be approved
y the Minister of Interior, and
hall afford general relief according
0 circumstances. A temporary in |,
JUNCTION is also prayed for, which
Tas issued and afterwards modified, D
all construction not ac- v
Ording to the requirements of the o
ranchise conferred by the statute Il
1884, and it is asked that the Il
anne be made perpetuI. &.
1t will be admitted, think, that
le main object of the bill is to tC
'mpei the defendants to perform 81
Ie work of construction of street W
ilways under their franchise ac-
riding to its requirements, and so
protect public interests from in
~ through an imp O. per perform