The Hawaiian gazette., 1890-11-11
OPINION OF TIE COURT BY DOLE,

corporation entitled 10e trustees
of the Anglican Church in Hawaii,
chartered by the Hawaiian Govern
ment. The respondent is the Presi
dent of the corporation. The petit
TONERS complain that the respon
dent hiss refused their written re
quest that he would call meeting
of the corporation in order that sale
corporation might consider, and il il
SD ~uld be deemed desirable and pro
PEI, decide upon the ACCESSIBILITY Of
removing binding on said pre-
misses 1.-THE cathedral grounds neal
Emma street, in Honolulu), at pre-
sent in close proximity TO the church
building in course of construction
for the Chinese congregation, /" giving
as his reason for declining such re-
quest, that the purpose for which
the meeting was desired did not fall
within the functions of said body"
The complaint further alleges that
the respondent as President of the
corporation Is authorized and re-
quired by the charter of said corpo-
ration TO cali a meeting of said cor
PorstiOn upon receiving written
request SO to do from one-third of
the whole body;" and that such re-
fusal - is without warrant of law and
wrongfully deprives the complain
ants as members Of the said eorpo-
ration of the opportunity to perform
the duties entrusted to them"
An alternative writ was issued
against the respondent and he
filed his answer, admitting the
request by the petitioners that
he would call g meeting of the
corporation, and his refusal to &C
cede to the same for reasons given,
and that the petitioners form more
than one-third of the corporation.
The answer s denies that he as
Bishop of Honolulu, is authorized
and required by the charter to call
meeting of said corporation upon
receiving a written request to do so
from one-third of the whole body"
snd denies also that said refusal is
without warrant of law and wrong
fully deprives eomplainsnts as mem
bers Of said corporation of the op-
pOrtunity to perform the duties en-
trusted TO them"
The charter of incorporation con-
tains the following section {" The
trustees shall be presided over by
the Bishop or his commissary, who
may or may not be one of the trus-
tees; provided, however, that in case
of vacancy Of the See. or if there
be no commisssry specially suthor-
lied in this behalf, the Archdeacon
may preside and if there be no
Archdeacon. the Senior Priest and
if there be no Priest, the trustees
shall appoint their own president,
and it shall be the duty of the said
president to call meeting on re-
ceiving written request so to do |
from one-third of the whole body"
The respondent, at the hearing as
well as in his answer, claimed that |
this section applies only to the emer-
gency of a vacancy in the See, when |
the trustees are authorized to sp-
point their own president, whose |
duty it shall be to call meetings on |
the written request of third of the |
corporation.
We regard this IS forced con-
struction of the sentence. The OBJ
vious meaning is that the presiding |
officer of the corporation for the
time being, whether he Is the Bishop
or his eommissary, or the Arcbdeaeon |
or the Senior Priest, or the sppointee
of the trustees, Is subject to the re-
quirement of calling meetings at the
written request of one-third of |
the members of the corporation.
The proyiso is very evidently
parenthetical. Moreover the con
struetion claimed by the respond
ent would practically destroy the
power given to one third of the
members of the corporation of calling
meetings; for the contingency pro
vided for when the corporation shall
be without q bishop, eommisssry,
arehdeseOn or priest is so remote that
8 right based upon it would be ordi-
narily of very little account Nor is
it eonceivsae why q distinction
should be made in the charter be
tween one kind of president and an
other as to their powers and duties
of calling meetings The respondent,
however, accounts for this distinc /
ton upon the basis of a provision of
the bylaws, whereby the power of
calling special meetings Is given only
TO the Bishop and his representa-
tiTes, and it thereby became neces-
ssry to provide for special meetings
In the contingency of the appoint
ment of lay president who has no
power given him by the by laws to
call SPECIAL meetings. The argument
has some plsasibility, but less so, TO
Us, than the counter argument that
the section was framed to provide
generally for calling special meetings
on the motion of 8 portion of the
members of the corporation, in addi- |
ton to the night given to the Bishop !
and his representatives by the by
laws II there was no provision for
calling special meetings the power