The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1899-08-19

appear for the Finance department. And what little he did in
this connection he did member of the bar but Attor
ney-General
The second charge Is that he abridged the professional rights
the complainant by permitting him raise question
appearance Here the respondent acted
~ Attorney This manifest require
No doubt it exaperaing and perhaps humating
the complainant have this restraint him. but that the
respondent in doing acted solely Attorney and
within his legal powers there be question
expressing these express approval
the Attorney Generals conduct Neither do intend
press dapproval. We do feel called upon upon
discussion of all the side and minor points commented
in attempt discourse morality profes
onal ethics, such of the invite. All
say this that of the respondent the
of the Attorney Gene that they of such
when done aside from his capacity atorneyatlaw,
would Justify action against him in his professional capacity that
the Attorney member of coordinate department of
government and that this has jurisdiction in pro-
ceen this kind pass upon his Attorney General
OF the has control its proceedings and
Attorney greater
tent proceedings which he engaged before it, but
proceeding of this character and entirely apart from the mat
connection with which he has acted hold him for
performed in his official capacity within his legal powers
If the Attorney General this committed Of
Judgment acted we either in permitting employee in
his department appear for the defense criminal
afterwards imposing the counsel engaged
conduct the prosecution he be held before the
public opinion shown ncapacity the due
performance Office
be brought before the of impeachment But for
pass upon the moral quality of his official in
proceeding kind would be oficious and improper.
The complaint is dismissed.
Kinney, Ba1lou &c McCldnahan for the complainant.
". O. Smith for the respondent
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TIE HAWAIIAN
MARCH TERM 1899.
HENRY E. COOPER Minister of Public Instruction. a. NAE
OLE HAO
EXCEPTIONS FROM C1Rcurr COURT FIRST CIRCUIT
SUBMITTED MARCH p, 1890 3,
JUDD CD, FREAR WHITING, j.
The Department
plaintiff action of ecmen to school land
OPINION OF THE COURT FREAR
of ejectment which the plaintiff Henry E.
Cooper Public Instruction seeks
Naeoe Hao the possession of of land
containing Wao District of Ewa Island
of Oahu being of the parcels of land covered by Royal Pa
(school Grant, 10 the Board of Education
At the close of the plaintiffs defendants counsel moved
direct verdict the defendant This
The here exceptions granting this motion
the verdict contrary and the evidence
the overrulng of motion trial These
tons raise questions namely the validity of the
which the verdict and directed
The first that the Minister of Public Instruction
failed prove himself is, he proper
party plaintiff it being contended and held that the title shown
in the Department of Public Instruction and the Min
of Public Instruction. if either The Royal
in this issued under S. L. 1880, Oh Comp. p
652 Civ L. Sec 1859 the Board of Education which by the
Act of January TO- 1865 See. Comp 1890 possessed the
powers and privileges of corporation. By L. 1896, Act 81,