The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1893-05-11
OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUDD, C. J

OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUDD, c. ]
The action was to recover dam
ages of the Hawaiian government fol
injuries to the person of the plaintiff
on the 18th of August last, the de
claration alleging that the defendant
by its servants dug large hole III
King street, Honolulu, covered its
bottom with stones and heaped up q
large mound of earth near 1T, OBJ
structing the highway, and negli-
gently left the hole in the night time
of that day without placing or keep
ing any light or signal there to lndl-
cate danger, and in consequence of
which negligence the carriage of
plaintiff was driven into the hole and
broken, and plaintiff was thrown out
upon the stones and severely Injured
and several of his bones broken,
whereby he suffered great pain and
expense, etc. The jury found YER
dict for plaintiff, $1,000.
AT the close of the trial the Court
was asked to charge the jury, among
other requests, IF the jury find that
the Road Board made the excavation,
it was their duty to place lights at
the scene of the accident, and whe-
sher they fejled to do so or not, you
must find a verdict for the defendant,
al the Road Board and not the de-
PENDANT is liable"
This was refused and exceptions
duly perfected bring the question to
this Court.
In the case of Peter High vs.. The
Hawaiian Government, decided De-
cember "a, 1892, we held that the Act
of 1883 (Chapter 5I) allowing suits
by persons who have claims against
the Government to be brought, il the
Justices of the Supreme Court shall
be of opinion that the claim is fair
subject for judicial investigation, in
cludes actions of tort committed by
the officers or agents of the Govern
ment. In that case the tort com
planned of was committed by labor
ers under the direction of the Road
Supervisor, who, as the law then
stood, was appointed by the Minister
of the Interior and removable by
him. That decision holds that the
Road Supervisor was state officer
and agent, and not the private serv-
ant or agent of the Minister, he being
required by law to make the appoint
ment, and that, therefore, the state
was responsible for his acts done
within the scope OF his employment
and authority.
The present case differs from that
in these respects, that now the Legis-
lature has provided by the Act of
1890 (Chapter 50, Section y that the
"Road Boards shall have charge and
control Of the public labor on all
roads, bridges and public highways,
within their respective districts, and
shall have the supervision and con-
troll of the expenditure of all road
taxes Sand all moneys appropriated
by the Legislature and used in max
ing and repairing the same, and in
such amounts as the respective
Boards or majority of the members
thereof may decide" The Minister
of the Interior shall, upon the nomi-
nation of the respective Road Boards
or a majority of the respec-
tive Road Boards, appoint
competent person in each tax
alton district of the kingdom to
be Road Supervisor for such taxation
district The Road Supervisor is
also removable by the Minister of
the interior on the written request
of the Road Board or majority of
its members.
Does this statute absolve the Gov
eminent from responsibility for acts
done by the Road Supervisors? This
involves the question whether the
method of appointment of the official
has changed the nature of his res
possibility In the case of Peter
High he was appointed directly by
the Minister of the Interior. In the
case before us the Road Board cleo
ted by the people dominates him
and the Minister appoints him.
Does he cease to be an officer
or agent of the Hawaiian Govern
ment because so appointed? In the
High case he was not, as we have
seen, the agent of the Minister of
the Interior, but of the Government.
The Minister IS not the Government
for he is himself a servant of the
Government. The Government is
the state representing the people.
The statute enables the people,
through the Road Board elected by
it, to control more directly in the
care of the public thoroughfares.
The service is for the public benefit
and it is paid for by the special road
tax and by appropriations from the
public treasury. The Road Super
visor gives bond to the Minister
for the faithful disposition of the
moneys thus expended. With all
this In view we hold that the Road
Supervisor is the servant of the Gov
eminent and according to the rule of