The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1892-12-15

The petitioner represents inter
ALA that he is the lawfully appoint
ed and qualified assessor and collec-
| tor of taxes for the first division,
being the Island of Oahu, an Office
established by law. That Charles n.
| Spencer, of Honolulu, in said Island,
defendant, now usurps said Office and
without the consent of the petitioner
has obtained possession of the books
pertaining to said Office, and is now
illegally performing the duties of
said office. And he pray5 that writ
of quo warranto may issue directed
to said G. N. Spencer, commanding
him to appear at a time and place,
and show by what authority he now
presumes to perform the duties of
assessor and collector of taxes for
said first division, and that he may
be removed from said Office and ad-
judged to have no title to the same.
On this complaint an order was
made for process to issue returnable
before the Supreme Court in Banco
on Monday, November 21st, 1892, on
which day continuance was agreed
to by consent of the parties.
The matter came on for hearing on
the 23d of the same month, and the
respondent filed a demurrer to the
petition and writ setting forth five
grounds Of demurrer. The second
ground is " that the proceeding for a
writ of quo warranto will not lie I'M
der the statute against this respond
ent."
We are Of opinion that this ground
alone is decisive of this question;
consequently it becomes unnecessary
to consider the other grounds.
The original law gave the Supreme
Court the power to issue writs of quo
warranto and all other writs ''to
courts OF inferior jurisdiction, to
corporations and individuals" In
1876 an Act was passed entitled "An
Act to define the nature and to regu-
late the issuing Of writs of mandam-
US, prohibition, certiorari, and quo
warranto." Part four Of the Act
reads:-
"Of the writ of Gao Warranto.
''SEcTIoN Sc. This also is an order
issuing in The nane of the Sovereign
by the Supreme Court IN torn. or by
any Justice thereof in vacation, and
directed to person who claims to
usurp an Office in corporation, in
curing by what authority he claims
to hold such Office"
Section 81 of the same Act reads
as follows:-
cit may also be granted upon the
application Of the Attorney General
against individuals acting as cor
poration without being legally incor-
porated, and against any corporate
body offending against the provisions
of any law relating to such corpora
ton, for misuser, for non-user, for
doing or emitting any acts amount
ing to surrender of its charter, and
for exercising rights not conferred
upon it."
And Section A of said Act reads
as follows:-
"Where the Legislature has grant
ed to q corporation the right to de-
termine the validity of the elections
of it's members or officers, a writ
shall not be issued for the purpose of
inquiring into that fact"
It will be seen at once on reading
these sections, that it was the inten-
ton to confne the issuing of this
writ to corporations and in corpora
ton matters only and not to private
individuals except in cases connected
with corporations. And we are of
opinion that the statute so limits
this writ. The Act clearly defines
the writ and regulates the issuing of
the same, then how can the Court
extend or enlarge its provisions I?
The demurrer is therefore sus-
tanned.
T. M. Hatch for petitioner, A. P.
Peterson and G. Creighton for the
respondent.
Honolulu, December 5, 1892.