The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1901-12-04
RAPID TRANSIT WINS
tContInued from page onel

Continued from page one)
case against his company, ana not even
then. II the attorneys therein were not
acting within his authorization, he had
the right to discarge Them and It was
his duty to his principal TO discharge
them and to make "a summary applica-
ton to the Court for redress.
He admits he was i'm court during
the proceedings i'm the Territorial SUI
preme Court and he testified in the
hearing herein, when examined in re-
lation to the stipulation for submission
of further facts in the Supreme Court
matter, that he knew some question
arose as to whether they should do
something and they did showing his
entire familiarity with the case and the
action being taken by the attorneys
therein.
There is no principle of practice bet
ter settled in our American law, than
that an appearance in Court by an at
torney for a client, carries with it the
presumption of authority to appear
(Bonnitield VS.. Thorp, II Fed. 924)
1T is always presumed that an at
torney appearing and acting for a party
to a cause has authority to do so and to
do all other acts necessary or in
cidental to the proper conduct of the
case, and the burden of proof rests on
the party denying such authority, to
sustain his denial by a clear preponder-
ance of the evidence.
1T is clear that managing officers of
corporations have power to employ at
torneys and counsellors without dele
cations of power or formal resolutions
to that effect And while Mr.. Pain
claims that he did not authorize these
attorneys, Messrs. Holmes & Stanley or
Paul Neumann, Esq. now deceased to
act as the attorneys for the corporation
complainant i'm that case, yet the whole
of the proceedings in the case, in
Guiding the appearance in Court of the
manager of the complainant (and its
only representative in these Islands)
during the proceeding, and the silence
of complainant ever since the rendition
of the decision shows that it tacitly adj
mitted to that Court the authority of
the attorneys to act in the matter. And
again, while Paul Neumann Esq, has
since deceased yet Messrs. Holmes &
Stanley are here, and if the complaint
ant so desired we could have had their
testimony in this proceeding. The de-
cision of the Supreme Court constituting
| the charters of the parties to that ac
| ton and their respective rights there
under, including the right to lay the
| track on King street on the part of res
pendent herein for a distance of more
| than seventeen hundred feet thereon,
| is binding upon this Court in the event
! there was no Federal question involved.
| mo federal question appears to be in
volved in the proceedings before this
| Court and no argument was presented
! in favor of any such question. 1t is
true the petition of complainant alleges
| that there is a constitutional question
| involved in that the granting of the
| franchise to the Rapid Transit and
Land Company was in violation of the
| prior valid rights of the complainant,
| but l find further in the submission
of facts to the Supreme Court that it
was admitted that the said Honolulu
| Rapid Transit and Land Company is
| the lawful holder of a franchise granted
| to Clinton G.. Ballentyne and others by
Acts SO and 10 of the Session Laws Of
| 1898
| ''Can the complainant after admitting
| in one Court of competent jurisdiction
the lawful holding of a franchise by
the respondent and have the case tried
upon that theory then come into an
other Court of different Jurisdiction and
deny the validity of that franchise in
an attempt to invoke the Jurisdiction
of that other Court in a proceeding in
equity? This Court will not consider
such an attempt.
1t does not seen necessary to pass
| upon the question whether the COM
plainant has complied with all the sta
tutes of the Territory of Hawaii i'm re-
lation to foreign corporations. in rem
dering the decision in this matter.
"One of the questions submitted to the
Supreme Court of the Territory as ap-
pears from the foregoing statement OF
facts is Has the Honolulu Rapid Tran.
sit and Land Company the right to lay
a track on King street for more thar
seventeen hundred feet?'
"a
Court after an exhaustive inquiry int
the various statutes and franchises un
der which the two parties were acting
decided in the affirmative. And this 4
substantially the only question now be
fore this Court, and which. question ha
been settled by the decision of the Su
preme Court of the Territory
This Court will not listen to a cola
teral attack made in this court upon
judgment of the Supreme Court of tn
= territory 1t is an established principl
of equity JURISPRUDENCE. elementary Il
its nature. that he who seeks euuit
must do equity And that he who ask
equitable relief must come into cour
with clean hands The complainant ha
not come into this court with clea
hands.
'Messrs. Dunno and De Bolt attor
neys for the complainant, this cour
holds are properly authorized to act /
this proceeding, yet from all the fact
there has not been such a showing mad
as will entitle this Court to assum
Jurisdiction i'm this matter, or entitl
the complainant to any equitable relic
herein. The preliminary injunction /
denied, and the bill dismissed wit
costs.
"EsTEE,
Judge"
J. ]. Dunno and John r. De Bolt, at
1 torneys for petitioner w r. Cast
and Kinney, Ba1lou & Mechanism
attorneys for respondent.