The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1898-03-28
THE RAILROAD CASE.

mercial Company VS.. the Kahului r. R.
Co. may be very briefly stated Gs fol-
lows:
Captain Hebron, about the year 1918
constructed railway from Kahului to
Wailuku. When Claus SpreckeIs obtain
ed Crown lands lease of the Wailuku
Commons, he gave Captain Hebron the
right to lay track over his land from
Kahului to Hamakuapoko, but the do
cument stipulated that the track should
not, among other things, interfere with
crops, etc, or with 'other improve
ments now on said land, or hereafter to
be made thereon" The road to Wailu-
ku has been in operation about 20
years, and until the present time no
serious question has been raised about
its right of way. The Hawaiian Com
mercial Company, having succeeded to
Claus Spreckels' rights, now disputes
the right of the Kahului company to
maintain track from Kahului to Wal
luku, on the ground that there is APP
parently no instrument in writing au-
thorizing it, and that the only docu-
ment in existence is the grant given by
Mr. Spreckels to Captain Hebron,
which fixes Hamakuapoko, and not
Wailuku as the terminus. The issues
involved are, the construction of the
terms of this document, which are not
clear, when taken in connection with
certain facts admitted; the verbal or
other agreements made by Captain
Hebron in securing right of way to
Wailuku; the rights acquired by occu-
patton for many years and the boun-
daries of Kahului.
The Commercial company, on the adj
vice of it's counsel, Mr.. Chas. B. Wheel
er, who is also one of it's directors, laid
down a track, during the night time
across the track of the Kahului COM
pany and then asked the Court to for
bid the Kahului company from interfer-
ing with this new crossing. The Court
after a hearing refused to enjoin the
Kahului company on the ground that it
did not approve of the act of the Com
mercial company in laying down the
cross track during the night time. The
Court held that this company could
prosecute the Kahului company as tres
passers and so establish the rights of
the parties.
This paper described the course of
the Commercial company as one Of
''sIharp practice" to which exception is
taken.
The reasons for the midnight con-
struction of the crossing were consid-
cred in the proceedings before the
Court, and Mr.. Wheeler, the counsel
for the Commercial company, said that
it was done so as not to interfere with
the day traffic of the Kahului company.
He also said that if the attempt had
been made to put down the crossing
in the day time, some member OF the
bar ION some pretense" on behalf Of
the Kahului company, might obtain an
injunction and prevent the crossing. In
other words he put it, that because
some wicked member of the bar might
induce the Court to do an unwise and
illegal thing and involve the Court it.
self in "contributory wickedness," he
advised the Commercial company to
Jump in, get possession and discuss
rights afterwards In stating that
some member of the bar might under
"some pretense" get out an injunction
against the Commercial company, he
declared his fear of being the victim Of
some decidedly sharp practice, and so
he forestalled it by the midnight move
ment. 1t is not very complimentary to
our Courts to intimate that a member
of the bar on some pretense' could
use them to defeat justice. A clever
lawyer knows the value of possession
in legal controversy.
The midnight act, while it is some-
times advised by eminent lawyers, is
frowned upon by the Courts, as it tends
to bring on just what Courts exist to
prevent, personal collisions, the taking
of the law into ones own hand. When
A claims a horse that is in BIS possess
sion, and B refuses to give him up, the
Courts set their faces against AS
breaking into BIS pasture and taking
away the horse. A may have absolute
right to the horse, but the Courts are
created to settle the dispute. Acting
on the advice of counsel" the Kahu>
lui company might put 1000 men at
work, and tear up the crossing. There |
would be private warfare. 1t was this |
dangerous step towards provoking per,
sonal conflict, subversive of law and |
order, that we called sharp practice. 1t |
does not involve any personal dishonor |
on the part of counsel adopting it.