Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1900-01-20
REPLY OF TRAMWAYS co
To The Complaint Of Honolulu Rapid
Transit and Land Go.
Statement Of Defendants Chartered Rights
Allegations Of Bad Faith Toward Public
Made Against Plaintiff Law.

In the suit of the Honolulu Rapid
Transit and Land Co. against the Ha-
waiian Tramways Co., the defendant
has filed an answer. Ii Is signed by w.
II. Pain, manager, and countersigned
by Il. M. Hatch and Paul Neumann, at
torneys for defendant.
Defendant denies that In pursuance
of plaintiffs powers or privileges the
plaintiff located its road upon King
street, and denies that IL had any
powers or privileges in that respect
except under Act 60 of 1898, which
gives the Rapid Transit Company the
power to occupy the streets and use
the tracks of the Hawaiian Tramways
Co. in accordance with the latter's
franchise granted in 1884, provided that
the Rapid Transit association should
comply with the provisions and re-
quiremcnts of Section of the Act of
1884.
The section referred to allows the
Legislature, or the Minister of the In
terror when authorized by the Legisla-
ture, to grant to one other corpora
ton and no more the right to use
either Of the aforesaid streets for a
distance of seventeen hundred feet and
no more, upon the following condi-
tons: That each company, person or
corporation using the said track joint
ly shall pay an equal portion for the
construction and maintenance of the
portion Of the track so used jointly"
Defendant denies that IL trespassed
upon plaintiffs location, or that defen-
dant's track had been laid so that 1t
would be impossible for plaintiff to oc-
cupy or use King street.
to faI hat ha lot 4,
plaintiff on King street is not laid for
the purpose of operating a street rail-
road thereon, but solely for the pur-
pose of forcing the defendant into liti-
cation, and Is laid in such manner as
not only to be useless but to constitute
a nuisance to the public using King
street for legitimate purposes, and de-
PENDANT denies that 1t has at any time
threatened to tear up or destroy any
portion Of plaintiffs track, but admits
that 1t intends to occupy said street in
so far as may be allowable under the
law.
The answer goes on to cite the DOW
ers given to defendant by the acts of
1884 and 1856, which included the right
to lay double track, and then alleges
that in July, 1899. the defendant an
. nounced to the Minister of the Interior
its intention to lay double tracks on
King and Beretania streets, to which
intention the Minister consented on
the 21st day of July. 1t mentions 'ts
moving of track to make room for the
second track, asserting that by this ac-
ton 1t did not abandon any of its
rights of location.
When the work had proceeded as far
as Alakea street, in substance the ne
PENDANT continues, the plaintiff, with
out right or justification of law, tres
passed upon the lower side of King
street and upon the rights of defend
ant, and laid in various places, rails
known as Il rails, and, as defendant Is
informed and believes, without the con-
sent or approval of the Minister of the
Interior which was incumbent upon 1t
to obtain thus interfering with the
operation of the proposed double track
of defendant.
Defendant reiterates its right to lay
it's double track as begun, and denies
that its acts, as set forth in the COM
plant, are contrary to equity or good
conscience or in violation of plaintiffs
right, and denies that plaintiff has any
rights in the premises.
Finally, defendant submits that all
the matters in the plaintiffs bill mem
toned and complained of are matters
which may be tried and determined at
law, and with respect thereto the de-
PENDANT asks to have the same benefit
of this defense as though II had de-
INJURED to plaintiffs bill.