The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1894-07-24
OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUDD, C.

An Injunction issued by Judge
Cooper of the Circuit Court First
Circuit in behalf of the defendant
corporation to restrain the plaintiff
from interfering with the manage
ment, charge or control of the de-
PENDANTS works was made perpetual
on the 31st May, 1898. No appeal
was taken. The Circuit Judge.
though considerable testimony was
taken upon both sides of the qqes-
ton whether the present plaintiff
had performed his duties in skill
full and proper manner to the salts
faction of the Company as required
by the contract of hiring, held that
the evidence was immaterial so far
as that proceeding was concerned.
The Judge then said "The defendant
has seen fit to enter into a contract
by which he agreed to perform GER
tain duties to the satisfaction of the
plaintiff and under the terms OF that
contract it seems clear to me that the
Company could at any time dis
charge the defendant subject of
course to his actions at law for dam
ages for an unlawful discharge"
On the 18th July 1893 the plain
tiff Rawlins brought his action
against the Company for damages
for breach of the contract. A de-
murrer was interposed' On the 7th
August the demurrer was sustained
on the ground that the declaration
was insufficient in law in that it did
not set out that Rawlins had per
formed his duties to the satisfaction
of the Company and that the allega-
ton in the complaint that the de
PENDANT "duly discharged all the
duties" required of him under the
contract is sufficient to show that his
services were rendered to the salts
faction of the defendant.
On exceptions to the Supreme
Court it was held Dec. IA, 1898, inter
ala, that as by the contract the
plaintiff agreed to work in a "skillful
and proper manner" and ito the sat-
isfactiop of the defendant, the de-
PENDANT is bound to be satisfied if
the work is done in a skillful and
proper manner" The demurrer was
overruled on this ground. But the
Court held that the allegation of de-
PENDANTS breach was insufficient, in
that, as the contract provided that
suspension of the works for a period
of over three months would suspend
the salary of the plaintiff until the
work was resumed, the declaration
should contain an averment to show
that the defendants alleged breach
did not come within the exception.
The decision ends with these words:
"The demurrer is sustained on the
ground that the allegation of defend
ants breach is insufficient as above
indicated but overruled as to other
points. The plaintiff should be al
lowed to amend his complaint as in
dictated and the case is remanded to
the Circuit Court for such further
proceedings as may be proper"
The Circuit Court was not then in
session.
Thereafter on the 26th December,
the Clerk of the Supreme Court, at
the instance of the defendants at
torneys entered Judgment that the
plaintiff take nothing by his said
suit and pay costs. On the same
day the plaintiff filed his motion
with the Clerk for leave to amend
his complaint by the adding of an
allegation that defendants refusal to
allow him to perform his contract
and to pay him his wages was not
caused by the suspension of the
works and averring that ever since
the making of the contract the de-
PENDANT has and now is running its
said works. At the opening of the
ensuing term of the Circuit Court,
February, 1894, the presiding judge
heard the motion for leave to amend
and granted the same on the 9Th
April. On the 9th April the amend
ed complaint was filed. On the 18th
April the defendant took exceptions
to the allowance of the motion for
leave to amend.
On the 23rd April the defendant
filed special pleas in bar to the
I i