The San Francisco call., 1896-04-01
Important Victory Gained by
the Attorneys for the
Plaintiff.
LOWER COURT IS SUSTAINED.
Citizens May Be Restrained From
Prosecuting Iniquitous Suits in
Foreign Courts.

Another and very important victory was
won yesterday by the plaintiff in the case
of Claus Spreckels against the Hawaiian
Commercial and Sugar Company, Russell
]. Wilson, Mountford S, Wilson, Charles
S. Wheeler, Rudolph Spreckels and B. J..
Hoffacker.
This victory was the denial by the Su-
preme Court of an ex-parte motion by the
defendants attorneys for a writ of prohI-
tion to prevent Judge Trout from pro-
ceeding further in his refusal to order the
temporary injunction dissolved after hav-
ing overruled the defendants demurrer to
the complaint. and having decided against
the contention OF the defendants that
Judge Trout had no jurisdiction in the
case.
All that the defendants can do now is to
abandon the contest or make direct ap-
peal to the Supreme Court.
In denying the ex-parte motion of the
defendants the following was handed down
by Chief Justice Beatty:
Rule to show cause denied, upon the ground
that the right OF petitioner to appeal from
the order granting preliminary Injunction,
or from the order refusing to dissolve the same,
affords means of testing the power OF the court
adequate and speedy remedy for any wrong or
injury sustained thereby.
The opinion of Judge Trout, which the
Supreme Court has sustained, is expressed
IN its title: Opinion of Hon. James NJ.
Trout of the Superior Court of the City
and County of San Francisco. delivered
March II, 1856, maintaining the power of
courts of equity to restrain citizens from
inin otla
citizens in foreign courts"
1t is an opinion which will be quoted as
a precedent in similar cases. In his deci-
sion Judge Trout says;
To use the language OF plaintiffs counsel,
"When the Civil Code was adopted the Legis-
lature established the law in this State for the
govetnance OF the people of this State. 1t was
no. concerned in protecting the dignity or en-
larging the jurisdiction OF the courts OF Ha-
waii, of New YORK or OF England. 1t was con.
cerned in the protection OF citizens of Califor-
mia from wrongs threatened or carried on by
other persons, whether citizens or not. The
State owes this protection to its citizens in re-
turn for the support which the citizens give
TO it.'' -:
The concluding paragraphs of Judge
Troutt's opinion, delivered on March 12
are as follows: -.
And now, in determining whether the de
PENDANTS demurrer should be sustained oil
overruled, the court must assume, in the face
OF the admitted facts, that the land in con
troversy is not held by the plaintiff in trust
for the defendant corporation, and hence thai
there was no occasion for said corporation tc
commence its aforesaid action against plain
tiff, and that in the light of all the cireum
stances and facts as alleged in plaintiffs com
plant, the said corporation ought not il
equity and good conscience to be permitted tc
maintain and continue it's aforesaid action il
the courts of the republic of Hawaii.
Hence, it is the opinion of this court that the
preliminary injunction heretofore granted
should be continued in force until by trial oi
the cause 1t shall have been determined
whether or not the facts established by the evi
dence then addueed may justify the court in
permanently enjoin1ng the defendant from
prosecuting the Hawaiian suit.
Accordingly, the demurrer is overruled, with
and the motion to dissolve the temporary in
junction is denied.
The setback which the counsel for ths
defendants received is emphasized by tbs
fact that Delmas & Shortridge, counsel fol
the plaintiff, were not present when the
application was made to the Supreme
Court. The defendants attorneys told
their story in their own way, and were
ruled against on their own presentation Of
the case