The Hawaiian gazette., 1890-07-01
OUR SAN FRANCISCO LETTER
Js City of Picking, San Francisco,
June Ia, 1890.
IRON Our Special Correzpondent.)
(Continued.)
Receiver ReddE Ousted.

Receiver keddT busted.
The Supreme Court rendered its
decision in bank on the 9th in the
case of Theodore A. 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 8 writ of prohibition to the Su-
perior Court, Department No. 6,
commanding and directing said
court and Judge and the receiver
OF said court to desist and refrain
from acting upon a certain order
appointing said 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 not
require, a detailed statement of the
facts
In the month of November, 1888,
the people of the State of Califor-
MA, on the relation of the Attorney
General. commenced an action in
said Superior Court against the
American Sugar Refining Com
pany, a California corporation, for
the purpose of FORGETTING its charter.
The corporation appeared and
answered the complaint, and after
trial the judgment of said Superior
Court was pronounced declaring its
forfeiture and imposing upon the
corporation defendant a fine of
$4,000 and costs of suit.
The Judgment was rendered JAN
uary s, 1890, and on the same day,
at the instance of the attorneys
representing the State, a rule was
issued and served requiring said
corporation and its attorneys to
show cause on the 18th of January
why a receiver should not be APP
pointed to take charge of the estate
and effects of said defendant corpo-
ration and distribute the same
according to law, or to preserve
the same pending an appeal
herein, if such an appeal was taken,
on the ground that the said corpo-
ration had been dissolved and had
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 the
Judge ofSuperior Court No. 6 made
the order for the appointment of
receiver.
On the 18th of February the
Supreme Court issued its alterna-
tive writ of prohibition against
William I. Wallace, Judge of Supe-
rior Court, and the receiver, COM
manding the latter to refrain from
executing the commands of said
court.
The whole case was submitted,
aud the practical effect of the judg-
ment of the Supreme Court as
handed down to-day is to release
the refinery from the the control of
the receiver and all orders of the
Superior Court made subsequent to
the final judgment.
The decision rendered, therefore:
does not affect the final judgment
in the case, which decreed forfei-
tdre of the charter and imposed
penalty of $4,000.
An appeal from the final judg-
ment 10 now under Amusement by
the Supreme Court.
After a lengthy argument cover
ing eighty-five pages OF typewriting
the Supreme Court concludes, and
after quoting a decision in case
which is being quoted, states that
sthe following propositions apple
able to this case are fully supported.
@First. If want of jurisdiction
is apparent on the face of the pro-
ceeding in the lower court, no plea
or preliminary objection is neces-
sary before suing out the writ of
prohibition.
Second. If the proceeding in the
lower court is not on its face with
out the jurisdiction of such court,
but is so in fact by reason of the
existence of some matter not dis
closed, such matter ought to be
averred in some proper form in
order to make the want of jurisdic-
ton appear.
~Third. But this is not essential
10 the jurisdiction of the Superior
Court to grant prohibition. 1t is
only laches, which may or may not
be excused according to circum-
stances.
accordingly we find frequently
a failure to plead in the lower court
was excused for the reason that it
that the plea would have
haay, raiected IF made. The whole