The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1900-04-21
AS flying THE YELLOW FLAG PAID TAXES ON The ROAD KAS RS NH# NAVY NAY TAKE
DISCHARGED IN THE DIsTRIcE
COURT.
Contractor, Who Built the Building in
Question to be Prosecuted--Legal
Definition Of Building"

A. S. Cleghorn was before the Dis
trict court this morning in answer to
a penal summons, charging him with
violating the building regulations in
erecting a building without a permit.
The building is a series of stores on
Queen street on a part of the land of
Kawaiahao cemetery, not used for bur-
ial purposes. The property belongs to
Kawaiahao church, and the revenues
go to 1t.
The prosecution presented evidence
tending to show that Mr.. Cleghorn APP
piled for a permit for the building
which was not issued on the ground
that the plans did not conform, in the
opinion of the building department to
the requirements of the regulations.
Evidence was also introduced to show
that Mr.. Cleghorn made the contract
for the building with the contractor,
| and that he collected the rents.
1t was maintained on the part of the
! defendant that he was not the person
! legally responsible in an action of this
| kind, to be fined under a penal statute.
Judge Wilcox said in deciding this
| case: Il have listened crefully to the
evidence, and find Mr.. Cleghorn not
guilty"
1t is now the intention of the build
ing department to prosecute the con-
! tractor for building without a permit,
and to prosecute Mr.. Cleghorn for
maintaining the buildings in an un-
sanitary condition.
A subpoena was issued for Ministe r
Young to appear as a witness in this
case for the defense, but the officer to
whom the subpoena was given could rot
find the minister before the case had
been concluded.
Mr. Cleghorn was represented in the
trial of the case by A. S. Humphreys.
The prosecution was conducted by Mar
shal Brown.
Immediately following this case was
that of a Chinese merchant charged
with violating the building regulations
by erecting lean-to in the rear of his
store on Smith street without leaving
free air space of ten feet between ii
and adjoining buildings, and without
leaving a clear space of five feet be-
tween the building complained of and
the boundary lines Of the lot.
DR.. Pratt testified that the lean-tC
was about six feet by fifteen, used
mainly for kitchen, and was built by
using the boundary fence on two sides
of the sides of the building, the hrick
wall of the main building for the third
and the fourth side was open, Tile rool
. was or corrugated iron, the rafters ex.
tending up to and against the brick
wall of the main building. The defense
maintained that this structure was mo-
a building within the meaning of the
regulations, for the reason that there
was no structure, there being no ques
tion but that the fence was legally
where it was, and the pieces of the
corrugated iron forming the roof were
simply laid there to keep the sun anC
: rain from the open space below, anC
were not fastened in any way excep
by their own weight.
Judge Wilcox found the defendan
: guilty and fined him $40. An appeal wa
, noted, Attorney S. F. Chillingwort:
c saying he would take the case up ol
law points to get an Interpretation from
the Supreme court of the meaning of
building as used in the regulations