The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1900-10-30

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY Of
HAWAII
SEPTEMBER TERM, 1900
WAHIAWA SUGAR COMPANY, Ltd. T. wAIALUA
AGRICULTURAL COMPANY, Ltd.
ORIGINAL ACTION QU1Er TITLE
SUBMITTED SEPTEMBER 49, 1900 DECIDED OCTOBER n, 1900
GALBRA1rH j. j. w. CArncAEr, Esq, ALBERT f. JUDI
Esq, BAR, IN FREAR, CD. PERRY j.
DISQUALIFIED.
The .5S @ Court the Of b srs and s e9a
That Section Civil 1897 authorizing
sections 50 DE Of SnaPsP of the snnf eaF T ss repealed
OPINION OF THE COURT JUDD ESQ
These proceedings brought under Chapter 10 of the
Civil 1897 being Chapter of so
Provide for the Quietng of Titles Estates and Interests Real
Property"
The complaint in its form, complies with the provisions of
the To the complaint the defendant demurred cha
longing the jurisdiction of this Court The plaintiff joined in
demurrer, and argument was had.
Chapter of the Laws gave the Supreme Court
and the Circuit jurisdiction hear and determine
this kind that the Supreme Court exercised
both original and appellate jurisdiction and all the machinery
necessary for the drawing of jue and the conduct of
nis prius supplied to the Supreme Court by statute.
In Chapter the of forth
list of laws specifically repealed by that Act.
proceedings brought
among the there enumerated The general repeating
of that section is as follows:
"And all laws or parts laws
which inconsistent with the provisions of this Act
repealed amended conform the provisions this
Act"
The which the plaintiff relies claiming that this
jurisdiction hear and determine this being
specifically repealed by Chapter 81 of the Laws of 1892 the
be reconcd give force and effect to BOTH
The plaintiff relying the doctrine that lit is presumed to
be the legislative intent that enacted enacted
all time argues that perfectly harmon
ious and that both should stand.
cannot adopt 1t that repeats by mplca
favored and that conflicting should be
that both may be sustained if possible but in this
case reconcile the conflict between the
and the latter prevail far they do conflict
The title the laws of 1892 gave Chap
clear index the legislative intent They called
IAN Act Reorganize the Judiciary That they intended to
deprive Supreme Court of all original jurisdiction, in
so far as original Jurisdiction needed aid this Court in
appellate functions, and in IIabeas Corpus (see See
Civil Iaws) have doubt Section SO of the Act
which states the jurisdiction the Circuit Court and Section 81
which forth that of the Supreme Court clearly do not
template that the Supreme have original jurisdiction
in actions tried before jury in the ordinary
And in Section Act find further proof that the
Legislature intended repeal the law which the plaintiff
relies in so far gave this Court original jurisdiction in
causes this nature That section, its third paragraph, reads
AZ follows: Civil actions and which before the s day of
January $685. shall have been filed in the office of the Clerk OF
the Supreme Court SHALL if be returnabe before the
First Circuit Court in chamber before the Judge OF
the First Circuit Court at Chambers
In Kahopai o. Limaeu, 10 Haw 5O7 is clearly expressed
the understanding that law of 1890 which have
provided for action law in common FORM when
would be placed upon the jury trial calendar and heard in the
ordinary manner This construction of that statute adopt
So had the plaintiff this action filed his declaration In the
office Of the Clerk this Court the last day OF the yea
1892 this case would been transferred by the Act to the
(yuit Court Of the First Circuit We hold that such
transfer was made for any other than that tn
of tho Act he deprived o