The Hawaiian gazette., 1891-11-10

Z " .llS- S1N<--- 9S-1S-r ~ " S1S-
W0zks- directing hin 70 turn On ths
wS-s- iron the government pipes 70
shs premises o. the petitioner o.
show eS1Se WV he should not do 50
Il Is SlsgeG BY the pssl4onsr tbs:
Ne hss enjoyed 5 government vsse-
/ privilege o. his premises II Homo
l1lu for mSny yeS-s xni hiss p2id
fu- the sane for Ehs present hSlt
ysSr. sni thst On Oesobe- 18Th the
respondent. contrary 40 MS duties S
sneh superintendent 0: wsts- works,
and 10 tas rights Of the petitioner.
shut oT the vSrs< iron the SID pre-
nlSss Sr6 refuses 70 turn L OF
sgSln, - the injUy q Ehs pssl-
1c-s<-
me respondent admits eating OF
the petitioners wsss-. Sri claims Ehs-
L was MS duty 40 Do 50; ne exhibits
the Regulations - the wstsr works
pro-ulgSied oy the Minister Of In
ss<io- Snd Snegss 6rO1th Sni sesr-
city q wafer. &nG rOsics toths public
limiting rrlgStlrg privileges 10 TWO
hours S dsy. D. = iron 4 10 5 o'eloek
l. N zni ; 10 s O'Clock ? N, srd thst
petitioner regardless Of the s6id
notice ard Regulations mss from tine
q ti-a during the last three months
used wz.s< fO< irrigation 81 times not
allowed by the sad regulstlo1s snd
notice. and hzs wzs1sd large qUsntl-
ties q wslsE BY SLOWING leaking
pipes u rsusin UnrepsIred-
4 eocslisrable mass q evidence
wss produced n s1ppo-t q the s-ls-
Cations 01 both siiss- and rs615tlng
the zusgsG0ns that the petitioner
hz3 61s16eysG the regGlz5I1ns- Inc
regClz1ous o the wstsr WORKS Con
tam the following articles . Con
sinners shall prsEe1t 81 Unnecessary
waste q E91sr. sr6 shz4 u4ke 10
eCEce1IDs-t o. the purposes for
which II : used Il Al service
pipes shall De ksg1 elsa- and N gOod
repair By the holder If the privilege
81 his OEr expense Is LTIga-
iiCu shall o. confined 10 the hours
that shall De published from time 10
tine ~ the s1perintsCds1Esf wafer
Eu-S@ II YIOlszzOl Of any OF
these rules 21i regulations shall
terminals the privilege, and the
@s-sr shall De CIT q and shall not
6e tzEus6 q again Until the pay
usos Of al Gusts and expenses
II discretion = vested n Al oEesr
II regard 20 : certain ssE. the court
upon 81 application for wit OF
1z1izucs 10 eoUpel hin 10 do q
undo the set- cannot consider the
question q oEcial duty.
In The case before =. II the shut
ting II q the Es1sr privilege f0E
Crssec q the reg1lsEIo1= was : MT
ter o. d-scresiC1 With the szpeEin-
ser6s15. this eogrs o. this spplica-
Go1 nay MT e1dsaE1r 10 ascertain
Ets5hsr q not h= sczsd With fault
lass Judgment. Il II appears thai he
zezsd n good faith and II the s1ar-
csc % rs 6-sc-eloC-
L appears fran the eTids1ce that
The s1peri1ssEdsc1 L empowered by
ths regulasCcs u cut CE the water
no1 he premises Of any holder Of
Z privilege II case Of { violation q
any q The ragulslio1s- (Ars- IL
To ascertain Ehsshs- q aot there
has been Z violation requires Il 81
sm1z5io1 mo the circumstances,
o:ts1 t=s-ing q testimony and
weighing q the evidence and eon-
clzzo1- i L 81 s.es Of : judicial IA
tire and L therefore Discretionary
uz4ter- Il the rsspo1dsus has eIs--
esd this discretion We nay not IL
terfzrs thro1gh Wit u 0zrdzUE-
Thsre = evidence that the pesI-
Eozsr had ecuUiEss,d breaches OF
TIE rsgulssious, which though de-
uisd 81 hin and rsb1t+sd 81 his eE
dscce- L Sufficient 10 support the
poeitlo1 tias, rightly OF wrongly, the
a. superintendent OF the
Wsts- Wo<ks exercised his dlzczs
zoc II the usstsr. (Sssse v Board
Fire Coma Is Ohio. 1872 Bradley
:. Thurz.oz, HzE- SO
Thsrs L zroEhsr standpoint from l
winch this isE1s nay Be considered /
o tie evidence / g. the Obligation |
4 The rsspozdeut 70 furnish the Pc
-iEiousE with water, arising from the !
ss5utrzes between ths parties II this /
cones solely from the
socE-zes L Tag nOk be enforced b
Duties imposed upon
: eurpozzss0u- lot by virtue Of eZ-
1rssE law O. b. the conditions OF IL
bzt arising o1t OF eo1trze<
relations VII not Be enforced D.
sIrcs The Use o. the wit
8 Ezitzd 10 the enforcement q 90
-igzzioas imposed D. law IStsts
= Pz1srso1- Is Ohio. 5lzl- Purely
Contract ObEgztiozs involving No
-rUzt Cannot be enforced By mzEdz-
ma tS1s@e Y 8 * N T. CO. Is
OaI0- 1852 This new Of the case
: Il the 1zt1rs Of a alternative
US a Z contract obligation L not
imposed b lzE and may ncs Be :
nzftsE Of discretion
The application : dismissed
A Z Peterson f1r peeIEiouer= T.
VI -rNnk -