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

from one court to another. This
leads to the result that Mr. Kaiue's
attempted resumption of jurisdiction
of the case on the 20th was illegal
and the proceedings thereupon had
by him were void. If it be admitted
that the conveyance of his wife's
land to another person removed his
disability, it could have no effect in
destroying the jurisdiction of Mr.
Halstead which was complete over
this case. But we do not deem it
necessary to hold in this case that
disability of this character once ex-
listing may not be thereafter removed
and the tribunal become qualified
In the matter before rs it is of no
consequence that Mr. Kaiue has seen
fit to sell his land, his authority over
the controversy was gone by the ap
pointment of Mr.. Halstead.
We therefore find sufficient cause
shown why Mr. Kaiue as commits
sioner for private ways and water
rights for Waikiki should not pro-
ceed further with the case in ques-
ton, and an order may issue forbid
ding him from taking cognizance of
the case and forbidding Claus Spreck
els and others to prosecute it further
before him.
We do not regard as serious the
objection made that Mr.. Halstead is
now incompetent to hear the case be-
cause be entertained a motion for
and granted a continuance of the
case while in Honolulu. If this was
a mistake on his part it certainly
does not disqualify him from pro-
ceeding further in the case. If MIR.
Halstead could not, without incon-
venience to himself, be present at
Waikiki on the 2Sth of September,
the date agreed upon by counsel and
presumably with the consent of Mr..
Kaiue after his disqualification was
mooted, or because he thought the
Waikiki Sugar Company should
not be forced to trial until their
witness had come, it was not i'm
proper for him to make other ar
engagements and fix another time
for the hearing of the case. It was
his duty not to subject counsel to the
expense and trouble of a trip to Wal
luku when he would not be there to
hear them. He was no party to the
agreement fixing the hearing on the
2Sth Of September. Counsel cannot
bind the court to hear their cases by
agreements inter sese without consult
ing the courts convenience. Gener-
ally the counsel's convenience is the
courts convenience, but court can
not be forced to hear a case at sta
ted time merely because counsel have
agreed that it shall be then heard.
We do not go to the extent of saying
that commissioner has Jurisdiction
of a case without the district for
which he was appointed, when we
say that we treat Mr.. Halstead's ac-
ton as an intimation to counsel that
they need not be present at Waikiki
on the 2Sth and that no proceedings
in the case would be had that day.
1t would be necessary for us to de-
eide the validity Of Mr.. Halstead's
act in postponing the case if counsel
for the Waikiki Sugar Company had
appeared before him on the 18th OF
October and had insisted on proceed
ing with the case and the commits
sioner had proceeded with it against
the objection of the other side. But
as both the 28th of September and
the 18th Of October have now passed,
the question has no Importance, and
Mr.. Halstead will be free to make a
new appointment of a day of hearing.
We are therefore of the opinion
that the writ applied for by Claus
Spreckels ct al. should be dismissed,
and we allow Mr.. Halstead to pro-
coed to the trial and judgment of the
case in question.
Messrs. w. o. Smith, Thurston &
Frear for the Waikiki Sugar Com
pany; Messrs. F. nj. Hatch, P. Neu-
mann and @. w. Ashford for Claus
Spreckels ct al.
Honolulu, December 3, 1892.