The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1890-06-24
OUR SAN FRANCISCO LETTER.


ttDll2IGc1-f
Receiver Reddr Ousted.
The Supreme Court rendered It's
decision in bank Oh the 9Th in the
case of Theodore 4. Havemeyer
and others against the Superior
Court of the city and county OF
San Francisco. known as the great
sugar case.
The issue was on an application
for writ of prohibition TO the Su-
perior Court, Department No. o,
commanding and directing said
court and Judge and the receiver
of said court to desist and refrain
from acting upon certain order
appointing sad receiver.
The court goes on to state that
the Importance of the case not only
as regards the interests at stake
but also in respect to the questions
of law and practice which it In.
wolves, will justify. If it does moi
require, detailed statement of the
facts.
In the month of November, 1888
the people of the State of Califor
MIA, on the relation of the Attorney
General. commenced an action il
said Superior Court against the
American Sugar Refining Com
papy, California corporation, fol-
the purpose of FORGETTING its charter
The corporation appeared ana
answered the complaint, and aftel
trlai the judgment of said Superior
Court was pronounced declaring it
forfeiture and imposing upon tn,
corporation defendant a fine o
S., 900 and costs of suit
The judgment was rendered Jan
uary 8. 1890, and ON the same day
at the instance of the attorney
representing the State, a rule wa
issued and served requiring sait
corporation and its attorneys Il
show cause on the 18th of January
why a receiver should not be ap
pointed to take charge of the estat,
and effects of said defendant corpo
ration and distribute the sam,
according to law, or to preserv'
the same pending an appea
herein, if such an appeal was taken
On the ground that the said cerpo
ration had been dissolved and ha,
forfeited its corporate rights.
On the 18th of January the cor
poration filed its notice of appeal
and filed the required bond.
On the 18th Of February tn
Judge ofSuperior Court No. 6 mad
the order for the appointment of
receiver.
On the 18th of February tn
Supreme Court issued its alterna
tive writ of prohibition agains
William T. Wallace, Judge of Supe
rior Court, and the receiver, com
handing the latter to refrain iron
executing the commands of sai'
court.
The whole case was submitted
and the practical effect of the judg
ment OF the Supreme Court a
handed down to-day is to releas
the refinery from the the control c
the receiver and all orders of tn
Superior Court made subsequent t
| the final judgment.
The decision rendered, therefore
does not affect the final judgmen
in the case, which decreed forte
ture of the charter and imposed
penalty of $4,000.
| An appeal from the final jude
ment is now under advisement b
| the Supreme Court.
| After lengthy argument cover
ing eighty-fve pages of typewritin
the Supreme Court concludes, an
after quoting a decision in Gas
which is being quoted, states tina
s'the following propositions apple
able to this case are fully supported
| "First. # a want of jurisdictio
is apparent On the face of the pre-
ceeding in the lower court, no pie
or preliminary objection is neces
sary before suing out the writ {
prohibition.
Second. If the proceeding in th
lower court is not on its face with
out the jurisdiction of such cour
but is so in fact by reason of th
existence of some matter not dii
closed, such matter ought to b
| averred in some proper form i
order to make the want of jurisdit
ton appear.
aThird. But this is not essentis
to the Jurisdiction of the Superio
Court to grant prohibition. 1t
only laches, which may or may nc
be excused according to circun
stances.
accordingly we find frequentl
a failure TO plead in the lower coul
was excused for the reason that
appeared that the plea would hav
been rejected if made. The Who'll
| question in fact was one of practie
oEly, not of jurisdiction, and th
objection which most frequentl
prevailed to the granting of tn
writ was not that the applicatio
came too early, but that it cam
| too late.
1.-THE rule we have adopted