The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-11-27

along the property OF said complainant;
that said wharf has not yet been COM
pleted; that the early completion OF said
wharf is necessary for the accommoda-
ton OF the commerce of said harbor.
and that 1t is the intention of this de-
PENDANT to extend the same so as to con-
meet with the shore at said public ROAD
as soon as possible after the completion
of much of said wharf as Is necessary
for immediate use.
That the bridge or wharf referred TO IN
plaintiffs complaint is a temporary ap-
Ijfoach leading from Queen street. pub
lie highway. up to the line of the said
proposed wharf, and is necessary for use
in the convenient construction OF said
wharf as in the use OF said wharf for
commerce, pending connection OF said
wharf with the shore aforesaid.
That at the time plaintiffs complaint
herein was filed this defendant was alb
sent from Honolulu, being on the Island
OF Hawaii that he returned to Honolulu
on the morning of this 18th day of No
vember. 1901. That the said bridge or ap-
preach, the construction of which plain
tiff seeks to enjoin, was substantially
completed prior to this defendants re-
turn to Honolulu, the same having been
completed and ready for use for the pur-
poses for which is was constructed.
This defendant further shows that said
bridge or approach has been constructed
over swallow water, ABOUT Ietl, distant
from the line of compliments property;
that the water intervening between COM
plainant's said property and said bridge
or approach is navigable only by small
vessels such as scows and rowboatS; that
the navigation of Honolulu Harbor I'M
derneath and shorewards from said
bridge or approach is not INSTRUCTED py
the erection thereof inasmuch as the
piles which support said approach are
about fifteen feet apart, and therefore
permit of the passage to and fro of such
small craft; that the erection OF such
bridge or approach does not cause any
obstruction to navigation in said harbor
That said complainant has had and still
has easy and clear access from its said
land TO said harbor for ocean gong yes
sells as well as small craft, and SAID
bridge or approach has no caused ana
will not cause said complainant any loss
or injury.
Judge Estee was inclined to allow the
petition for temporary injunction, ana
the defendants did not contest this very
strenuously as the work which the IN
junction was to restrain has already
been completed.
There is no denial here that the
wharf is within the lines deliminated
by the Secretary of War" said Judge
Estee. IF the Superintendent of Pub
lie MOTRS mas gone NllLllI lilOSC iAAANS'
there IS nothing for the court to do but
grant the Injunction. AS the court I'M
derstands it, any obstruction within the
harbor lines is a trespass, and no citi-
zen can infringe upon the order of the
Secretary of War
Mr.. Robertson contended that no in
dividual could seek redress in injunc-
ton, unless specific damage was shown,
and that the only way such order
should issue was upon the application
of the Attorney General of the United
States. He stated that there was no
need OF a temporary injunction, as the
work which plaintiff sought to stop had
already been accomplished.
"If it is admitted that the Secretary
of War has the right to fix the har-
Dor limits said the court, and that
he has fixed such limits neither the
Territory or any citizen has Alright TO
infringe on commerce by the obstruc-
ton of the harber in any manner. If
1T is true that defendant has cut off
the harbor, there is no question about
it being wrong"
1--WE admit that this approach has
been built" replied Mr. Robertson, but
contend that this complainant has no
standing in this court. To enjoin the
of the wharf special dam
age must be shown, apart from that
done the public
mo showing has been made against
the issuance of this injunction" replied
Mr.. Hatch. They say that the ap-
proach is only temporary, thereby adj
hitting that they have no right of law
to be there, even If our only access to
deep water is by small boats. there is
yet a showing of damage. An individ-
uai is not compelled to wait until the
Federal authorities act, before injury
to it can be stopped. Particularly is
this so. because of our isolated posi-
ton"
The court apparently favoring the is
suance of a temporary restraining or
der, Mr.. Robertson called attention to
the demurrer filed by him last week,
and asked leave to argue 1t. In the de-
murrer to the petition it Is alleged:
/. That It appears in and by said bill
that said plaintiff has not stated such a
cause as entities 1t to the relief therein
prayed for. nor any relief from or
2 gainst these defendants.
Q That enough does not appear upon |
the face of said bill to show the jurisdic- |
ton of this honorable court of this suit, |
by reason of any alleged injury to said
plaintiff or by reason of any Federal |
question being involved.
Mr.. Robertson also called attention
to the fact that the complainant did not
allege the necessary amount of dam
age, 50, 900, to be entitled to hearing
in the United States court Mr.. Hatch
followed and had not concluded his ar
gument when the court announced that
no further showing was necessary. He
issued a temporary injunction and set
the hearing for q permanent order for |
Saturday morning. The plaintiff gave
bond in the sum of $500. Judge Estee
in issuing the order stated that no one
had a right to infringe on the harbor as !
delineated by the Secretary of War.
The work on the wharf proper VIII |
not be stopped because of the tenn
porary injunction, as the suit has to do |