The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1890-04-30
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.

street, Honolulu. Appeals OF
S. C. Allen, estate of Mrs. B.
P. Bishop aud Mrs. Snow. Be-
fore the Chief Justice. Janu-
AIRY Term, 1890. Jury waived.
OPINION OF CHIEF JUSTICE JUDD.
Several important questions are
brought up by these appeals.
First-Have the Commissioners
appointed under the Statute to
assess the damages to property
taken for street opening or i'm
provement and benefits for such
improvements, the authority to
| assess benefits upon land situated
not upon the street widened but IN
the neighborhood.
Second-Are the particular es-
tates, whose assessments are ap-
pealed from, within the authority OF
the Commission.
Third-Do the damages or cost,
a percentage of which is to be re-
couped by these assessments, in
clude the damages paid to owners
of lands which have been taken by
the State for the street improve
ment?
Section l of the Act of 1870 pre-
scribes that the Commission shall
determine what estates are especi-
ally benefited by such road or
highway, and the amount OF espe-
cial benefit to each"
The appellants lots are situated:
Mr.. Aliens on King street, be-
tween Alakea and Richards; one
lot of Mrs. Bishops estate is ON
King street, between Alakea
and Fort, and the other on
Queen street, between Alakea and
Richards; and Mrs. Shows lot on
Hotel street, between Alakea and
Richards.
No one of these lots is on Alakea
street. which was widened, and no
one has been made more convent
ent of access or benefited in any
that it is possible to discover.
There is no evidence that their
saleable value in the market or
their value to rent has been espe-
clally appreciated by the widenin g
of street in the neighborhood.
Any improvement in the town is
doubtless a general advantage to
all the property holders in the
town.
| The introduction of water works,
the better lighting of streets, facili-
ties for transportation of freight
and passengers, good police SER
vice, everything of this character,
improves the value Of real estate in
town.
But these are general advantages
in which all parcels of real estate
in the given town share in a
greater or less degree. I cannot
bring myself to the idea that a lot
of land lying between Alakea and
the next street parallel to it, is any
more benefited by the widening OF
Alakea than any other lot in this
town, not on the street.
Only " especial benefits " are to
be assessed, not general benefits in
which all property owners in the
town, district or island participate.
The Legislature in prescribing
that the estates respectfully bene-
flied" by the Improvement should
be assessed for portion of the cost
of the Improvement, certainly did
not intend that the incidental adj
vantages which might accrue to all
the landed property in the district
of Honolulu should contribute to
the cost.
The Statute of Massachusetts dis
tinctly limits the assessment of bet
terments to such real estate, in
Guiding that part of which is
taken therefor, which receives any
benefit and advantage therefrom
beyond the general advantages to
all real estate in the city or town.
Mass. Statutes 1882, p. 344.
I think our Statute has the same
meaning and intention, and accord
ingly / find that part of the report
or determination of the Commits
sioners which assesses benefits on
the appellants estates to be void.
The remaining objections to the re-
port of the Commissioners it is not
necessary to consider.
A. FIJI UDD,
i Chief Justice Supreme Court.
I w. Foster for appellants.
| Acknowledgement Ashford for
the Government.
Honolulu, April 20, 1890.