The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1901-11-08
SEEKS TO
ENJO|N
Federal Aid Asked
by Tramways
Company.
(From Thursdays daily.)

DuildinP into KING street, the hawai-
ian Tramways Company applied yester-
day, within a few hours for an injunc-
ton in the United States Court. Though
Judge Estee was urged to grant a tenn
porary injunction Immediately upon the
hearing in chambers he refused to do
so. and the case will come up in regu-
lar order next Monday. In the mean
time the defendants are allowed to con-
tinue operations free from interference
from either court.
Manager Pain through his attorneys. |
Dunno. Fitch and De Bolt, first made
an application to Judge Humphreys FOR
an injunction, asking him in effect to
overrule the Supreme Court in its order
Of few months ago granting the Ho-
nolulu Rapid Transit h Land Com
'pany the right to lay tracks on King
street. The court sustained the counsel
for he Tramways company in the con-
tention that the Supreme Courts action
in that matter was invalid, but denied
the application on the ground that he
hal in a former case decided that the
1ramways company did not have an
Exclusive right 70 the use OF King street
The application was presented to the
Circuit Court by Mr.. dunno Immediate
~ upon the opening Of court in the aft
'ernoon. He read the lengthy petition in
which he sets out in detail the facts
lconcerning the plaintiff corporation, and
it's organization, etc, and then goes on
to refer to the case previously submit
ted to the Supreme Court He alleges
that the submission of fact to the court
was without authority in that your
orator never appeared in said alleged
submission nor did your orator sign or
consent to or authorize any person in
it's behalf to consent to the said sub
mission" 1t is further alleged that
Paul Neumann and Holmes Il Stanley
submitted the agreed statement without
the knowledge or consent of plaintiff
and that he (Pain) knew nothing OF the
" matter until after the Supreme Court
i had rendered its decision. Consequent
u ly the action of that court is said to be
of no effect. The petitioner also al
Ileges that defendant under said decision
claims the right to lay street railway
l tracks on King street, in derogation OF
the prior rights of the plaintiff. and II
r. now laying track upon King street, OBJ
structing the street and impairing tn
a beneficial enjoyment by the plaintiff o
', it's aforesaid franchise. A temporar!
lnJunCtlou ~ asked restraining tHe ue
o PENDANTS from further interfering will
the rights of plaintiff.
r Mr.. Dunno in presenting the matte
~. to the court called the attention of tn
court to the statute relative to the sub
: mission of an agreed case to thu
Supreme Court, and contended in sucl
lclvil cases the higher court had only
appellate Jurisdiction, and not origina
tod, hn
;, torney in conclusion. that this proceed
ing never originated in n Circuit Court
and it could not have been the subjec
of civil action in Supreme Court. Con
lscquently the whole proceeding is null
and void and of no effect"
;, Judge Humphreys held that jurisdic
" ton could not be conferred by consent
II nor was assumption of jurisdiction suf
J. ficient. If the Supreme Court assume
= to act in a matter in which II has n
70 jurisdiction" the court said, the entir
proceeding is null and void, and is re
spected by no one. But taking out tn
question Of Jurisdiction; this court ha!
D held in the case of ]. A. McCandess
Superintendent of Public Works, VS.
The Hawaiian Tramways co. that tn
p Tramways company did not have al
King street. and while the Honolul,
Rapid Transit & Land Co. was not
party to the said suit, the plaintiff il
:. this action was party, and appeare,
. in court and submitted to the juris
= diction of this court. Therefore the ap
!. plication for an injunction will be de
MED"
= IN FEDERAL COURT.
I. The next proceeding of the Tram
ways Company was an appeal to tn
4. United States court, and as soon a
q court adjourned in the afternoon III,
Z matter was presented to Judge Este,
r In chambers. The jurisdiction of tn
= Federal Court is obtained by an at
tack upon the constitutionahty Of tn
-. charter under which the Honolulu
"A Rapid Transit and Land Company /
operating.
In the petition filed with Clerk Nal
n. ing yesterday the Hawaiian TrainW ay
- Company alleges that on August .,
N 1854, William II. Austin and his asso
=. ciates We're given the right 10 opsrat
n street railway upon the streets {
q. Honolulu; that in September. 1856, tn
Al said charter was amended and reenac,
ed, and that thereafter and prior I
:. November IA, 1890, the charter wa
,r transferred TO the plaintiffs in this &C
4 ton. and that said plaintiff is a for
eign corporation doing business unde
- the laws of Great Britain. The pet
IA tion then sets out in paragraph 4, III
M granting to the Hawaiian Tramway
Company. on November Il. 1890, of III
right to maintain electric traction, an
-. in paragraph 5, the amendment to III
=, charter passed August IA, 1895.
-, paragraph the plaintiff sets out thf
the street railway has been operate
=. under that charter, and that il is
valuable asset in the hands of plaii
tiff.
Paragraphs 7. and Q of the con
plant allege that on July Z, 1898,
charter was granted to the Hono'u
BY Rapid Transit Company. and corpo
he alton has been organized to take ov
nut the charter and that the act Of Il
ed. Legislature Of the Republic Of Haws
Is. CONSTITUTES the alleged charter o: Il
defendant
. The further grounds for action Of d
- Hawaiian Tramways Company is 5
'en Tout in the concluding paragraphs Of 4