The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1892-12-14

gether. The essential facts are as
follows:
On the Oath August, 1892, one S.
E. Kaiue the commissioner of pri-
vate ways and water rights for the
district of Wailuku, Island of Maui,
issued a summons to the Waikiki
Sugar Company to appear before
him on the 14th September to show
cause why judgment should not be
rendered upon the complaint of
Claus Spreckels and some twenty
others, they claiming certain OBJ
structions and diversions by de-
PENDANT to the water rights of com
plainants.
On the 25th August notice was
served upon complainants' counsel
that the Waikiki Sugar Company
objected to the case being heard by
MIR. Kaiue for the reason that he
was interested, his wife holding an
interest in land affected by the
water in question. This notice also
contained the statement that the
Waikiki Sugar Company would be
unable to go to trial until the pres
ence of Mr.. w. FL. Bailey of Cali
fornia could be obtained, he being a
material witness. The case was then
postponed by written agreement of
counsel to the 21st and further to
the 20th September Meanwhile,
counsel for complainants admitting
MIR. Kaiue's disqualification, a com
mission was procured from the Min
lister of the Interior under Section 2
of the Act of 1888 respecting private
ways and water rights to w. FL. Hal
stead as commissioner pro tenn. of
private ways and water rights for
the district of Waikiki, Island of
Maui, to act in place of s. E. Kaiue
in the hearing of o certain case of
Claus Spreckels and others against
the Waikiki Sugar Company in
which matter the said S. E. Kaiue is
not qualified to act as commissioner
he being personally interested" etc.
The commission was issued 24th
September. Mr. Halstead was then
III Honolulu, Island of Oahu. On the
9th September counsel for the Wal
luku Sugar Company having given
notice of such intention to counsel
for Spreckels ct al, moved the spe-
cial commissioner Halstead, then in
Honolulu, to grant further contin-
uance Of the case for not less than
two weeks, owing to the absence of
Mr.. w. III. Bailey who, as appeared
by the affidavit of Mr.. W. 0. Smith,
was expected to arrive on the steamer
Australia of October 9Th. Counsel for
Spreckels ct al. objected strenuously
to the entertaining of this motion by
commissioner Halstead while in Ho-
nolulu, claiming that he had no
Jurisdiction to hear any proceeding
in the case outside of the district of
Wailuku, Maui, for which he was
appointed, and also that the day of
hearing set by stipulation had not
arrived. After hearing counsel on
both sides, Mr.. Halstead granted the
continuance to the 18th October.
Counsel for Spreckels then notified
Mr.. HaIstead in writing that they
would be at Waikiki on the 28th of
September, the day previously
agreed upon, and would be prepared
to and would insist upon proceeding
with the case. Mr. Halstead did not
go to Waikiki nor did counsel fol
| Waikiki Sugar Company. Counsel
for Spreckels ct al, however did pro
coed to Waikiki, and on the day oil
their arrival, the 26th September, Mr.
Kaiue and his wife executed a deco
of their land in Waikiki to one Koo
koo, and considering that his disqual
ification was thereby removed, MIR
Kaiue proceeded on that day and fol
several days thereafter to take thu
evidence of witnesses for the com
plainants, and further continued tht
case to the I'd of November.
On the 18th October, the Wailukl
Sugar Company petitioned thi
court for Writ of Prohibition
against Claus Spreckels ct al. ant
Mr.. Kaiue to prevent them from pro
ceeding further with the case. At tn
same time Claus Spreckels ct al
filed similar petition to prevent Nh
Halstesd and the Waikiki Suga
Company from proceeding furthe
with the case. Both writs were mad
returnable before the full court.
BY THE COURT.
The crucial question in this case
which commissioner had jurisdiction
, of this controversy on the 2Sth @
, September. We are of opinion tina
! it was Mr.. Halstead, the commits
sioner pro tenn, and not Mr.. Kaiue
the regular commissioner.
The statutory provision for the az
pointment of q special commissions
l to hear certain named controvers
F.; respecting water rights, in case c
: the disability of the commissions
having been complied with, and MI
Halstead having accepted the al
, pointment as such special commits
sioner, the case was fully and con
pletely transferred to him, and b
, was clothed with all the powers COZ
/, ferred by the statute upon a con
s missioner. We consider that his al
Y pointment to hear this special Gas
e gave him jurisdiction over it from til
8 moment he accepted the appoin
: ment. The question which of tN
: tribunals of concurrent jurisdictio
= has obtained authority over
u case does not arise here. The a.
: pointment of Mr. Halstead remove
" the case from Mr.. Kaiue as con