The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1891-10-27
OPINION OF THE COURT BY DOLE,

This case comes before US upon
the following stipulation: 1t is
agreed that this cause shall be heard
by the Supreme Court in banco in
the first instance. Is is agreed that
the question submitted to the deci-
sion of the Supreme Court shall be
whether or not on the facts presented
by the record, the proceedings of the
Tax Appeal Court in this matter
were invalidated by said G. Mein-
ecke's sitting and acting as mem
Der. And that if so invalidated the
prayer of the petitioner shall be
granted"
The circumstances of the case are
these: In 1890 the plaintiff made
its returns to the assessor of its
property situate in Kau on the isl
and of Hawaii, in the amount of
$411, 9099S. The assessor raised the
valuation to S661 1850, from which
assessment the plaintiff appealed to
the tax appeal court, of which one
G. Meinecke as a member. The
plaintiff protested against the said
{. Meinecke sitting as member of
the said court at the hearing of the
said appeal on the ground that he
was not disinterested, being en-
ployed by the Hawaiian government
as postmaster under salary and was
therefore disqualified, and also on
the ground that he was hostile to
and prejudiced against the plaintiff
and was engaged in litigation with
it, and was thereby biased.
The tax appeal court, notwith
standing the plaintiffs protest
heard the case and rendered deci-
sion therein, fixing the value of the
plaintiffs property for taxation pur-
poses at S613,86l.00 and costs at
$4,000, upon which valuation the
plaintiff paid taxes together with
the said costs under protest.
The law provides that the several
tax appeal courts shall be composed
of circuit or police judge, "to-
gether with two disinterested per-
sons, to be appointed by the Min
lister of Finance"
Was G. Meinecke disqualified
from sitting as member of such a
court by reason of his Office of post
master or of the litigation with the
plaintiff? The evidence shows hos
tile language against the plaintiff on
the part of Meinecke, but does not
definitely fix the time when it was
uttered, except that it was before the
sitting of the tax appeal court. 1t
may have been SO long before as to
be without Importance to the issue
raised. In regard to the connection
of MIR. Meinecke with the Hawaiian
Government-one of the defendants,
as postmaster, we think that that is
a relation which tends to undermine
the impartislity of one subject to it.
The position, indeed, was probably
not an important one and the sal
airy may have been small, but it
may have been of value to Mein-
ecke; his business as a storekeeper
would naturally have made the
establishment of the district post
Office in his store a matter of
Importance to him from the number
of persons who would be thereby
constantly drawn to the building.
We are therefore of the opinion
that G. Meinecke was not disinter-
ested person in the meaning of the |
statute, and was therefore disquali- |
fed from acting as member of the |
tax appeal court in question, and
that the said action of the said
court was illegal and must be set
aside. The excess of taxes paid by
the plaintiff over those due on the
returns made by it, together with
the costs of the appeal and interest
must be returned to the plaintiff by
the defendants. Decree accordingly.
Dated Honolulu, Oct. 20, 1891.
T. III. Hatch and G. L. Carter for
plaintiff.
A. p. Peterson and Attorney-Gen-
,ral Whiting for defendants.