The Independent. [volume] (Honolulu, H.I.) 1895-1905, 1898-11-30
DEFENDANTS DEMURRER.


end Alfred Willis, Bishop of Homo
lulu, to the bill OF complaint OF Geo.
S. Harris, w. L. Stanley, e. w. Jor,
dan, j. w. Podmore, and T. M.
Starkey, the above-pamed plaintiff.
This defendant, by protest alton,
not coufessing all or any OF the mat
ters and things in the plaintiffs bill
of complaint contained to be true in
such manner and form as the same
is therein set forth and alleged, doth
demur to said bill, and for causes Of
demurrer showeth:
l. That the plaintiffs have not in
their said bill made or stated such
case as entities them in a Court Of
Equity to any relief against him as
to the matters contained in said bill
or any of such matters.
2. That the said bill does not
contain any matter of equity where
in this Court can ground any de-
cree, or give to the plaintiffs any re-
lief against this defendant.
3. That it appears by the said
bill that corporation existing un-
der the laws of the Hawaiian ISL
ands, having the corporate name OF
the Trustees of the Anglican
Church in Hawaii" ''owns in fee
simple and has the exclusive control
apd management OF the said ST. An
drew's Cathedral buildings, the
grounds and appurte nances thereto,
and that said corporation manages
and controls and has the right to
manage and control said property
through said Trustees and not
otherwise;" and also that said cor.
poration has consented to q certain
agreement" mentioned in said bill
in the Exhibit ga" thereto attached,
on which said agreement the said
bill is founded, and that said cor
poration is necessary party to the
said bill and yet is not made
party plaintiff or defendant herein
4. That it appears in and by para
graph a Of the schedule forming
part OF Exhibit "a" that 'the duties
of the Churchwardens of such dis
trict congregation are limited to the
maintenance OF order among their
own congregation during the time
of public worship, the disposal with
the minister OF money given at the
offertory, and the oversight OF the
clergy and laity of that congrega-
tion in respect to their observance
of and obedience to the laws of the
church," wherefore the church.
wardens OF such distinct congrega-
ton have not, and none OF them
have, any title or interest in the
matter which is the subject of this
suit, and are not, nor are any OF
them, entitled to any relief against
this defendant as to the matters con-
tanned in the said bill or any OF
such matters.
5. That the said bill fails to show
that any or all of the plaintiffs are
entitled to any relief against this de-
PENDANT as to the matters contained
in the said bill or any such matters.
6. That the said bill seeks relief in
respect of several distinct matters
which are disconnected with each
other and are not properly joined in
the same bill, to wit: Ia respect OF
the alleged violation by this defend
ant of the said agreement concern
ing the use of said Cathedral, and
in respect OF the alleged claim OF
defendant of his right to revoke
and his alleged threat to revoke the
license of the duly licensed pastor
OF said congregation, and that the
said bill is multifarious.
z. That the said bill fails to show
that the said plaintiffs have any right
to bring this bill in the name and
behalf of the Second Euglsh-speak-
ing Congregation OF st. Andrews
Cathedral
3. That this Court has not iuris-