The Hawaiian gazette., 1893-05-16

. ! k.-aNaaa~ N@N~--NA- LIZ 4NNaA
vSor gives bond to the Minister
for the faithful disposition OF tn,
moneys thus expended. With al
this IN view we hold thst the RoaC
| Supervisor Is the serYsnt Of the Gov
eminent snd according TO the rule q
-ssnss5s,t s..asrisr the Government !:
responsible for his acts done IN the
scope OF his authority snd employ
nent- Snd the legal method through
which he receives his appointment Is
Ministerial
Much discussion has been hsd in
/ the Courts OF the United Ststes res.
peclng the hsbility OF municipal
corporations Eni whether the acts
complained Of were done by ser
rants Of the corporation lthst Is. the
particular ethyl OF OF the ssste itself.
Il must be borne IN mind that no
stsre OF the United Ststes cau be
sued by Its citizens without Its con-
sent snd none sre hsble for the tOrts
OF is servants No sovereign stste
hiss ever held itself lisble 10 indivi.
dnsls for the uiSfesssnce. lsches or
unauthorized exercise Of power by
officers and agents" Gibhon vs.. [.
5. s Wall. 20.
In this respect the Hswsiisn Gov
eminent Is pzculisr. having by the
Act o. 1855 (Chspter 81 surrendered
It's exemption from suit on account
OF the torts Of Its serysnts In tie
s;stsS q the United States the effort
q the plsinnf Is 70 establish that
the set wss done by servant Of 8
municipality tor this can be sued.
whereas the slste csnnOt be.
Judge Dillon. IL > Municipal Corp.
Section 97A. says. If the corporation
appoints OF elects the servants or
asentS. and esn control them in the
discharge Of their duties, csn con
tinCa OF remove them. can hold them
responsible for the manner IN which
they discharge their trust: and If
those duties relate . the exercise OF
the --c--.s rcEsrs. and are for the
peculiar beEe6t Of the corporation IN
Is lCcsl Gn3 special interest. they
may Be regarded a It's agents or ser
wants and the maxim u rsspes6s1t
s1-S-ie- spplies The superior in
this case being the corporation. But
II. or the other hand. they are elected
or appointed by the corporation. in
obedience 70 the statute, to perform g
public service not peculiarly locsl or
corporate. but because this mode of
selection mas been deemed e1pedient
by the Legislature n the distribution
OF the powers OF the Government, If
they are independent Of the corpora
fion as the tenure Of their office and
the method OF dischsrging their
duties. they are Tot 10 be regarded
IS the servants Of the corporation for
whose sets CT negligence It Is In
pliedly liable. but as public or state
officers. with such powers and duties
IS the statute eoufers upon them. and
the doctrine OF rzgEgz.ie1s stgsTfsr Is
not applicable" That Is. the NUM-
cipsl corporation would not Be liable
II they were the servants Of the state.
II our case tie Road Board Is not &
aud the service Of the
Road Supervisor i not peculiarly
local but Is To- the public benefit,
since the central government through
the Road Boards has the care Of the
public roads and streets, ard We have
70 municipal corporations to whom
this duty might Be entrusted.
II Hill Is. Boston. 10 Mass. 81 81
the Cczrt held thst the city OF
Boston vas not liable to E child
for 81 injury suffered By res-
sdo OF the unsafe condition
d staircase IN school house /
which was provided By the city IN
der the general law. On the principle /
that 10 private seton, unless suthor !
.ze6 By express statute. can be main |
tanned against 6 city. for the neglect /
d 8 public duty imposed upon 1t by I
: Isw for the benefit Of the public 4
snd for the performance Of which 4
The corporation receives 10 benefit or |
The counsel for the defendant re- !
les upon Mzximilisn -. Mayor. 81 4
\. I. I6J Here the Court held that /
where by legislative enactment, &
corporation : required to
elect q apP-i-t 81 officer q perform
: public duty. laid not upon II but
1pou the of5czr. IN which i has no I
private Interest, and from which II
derives 10 special be1sft OF sdTan-
see. such oEcer Is not E servant OF
.gsnt Of the Municipality. and Tor
IL negligence OF want Of skill II the
Of his duty, @ for that
4 E servant whom Is employs, It Is
lot liable: and this although the
,Ecsr q servant has II charge and 4
he negligence : II the uss OF. cor
1orste property. In this case tie Z
iGtiss imposed b. lsE upon the con-
q public charities and /
we're public IN their char
.cter and from their performance 10 (
special corporate benefit vas de-
Iysd- Accordingly i was held that /
he city corporation vas DOt liable
O the negligence 4 The eOmmis-
ioueTs II driving 81 ambulance be I
gugIrg TO the city WHICH struck and