The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1901-12-06

4
principal TO discharge them. and to make
a summary application to the Court for
redress.
He admits he was In Court during the
proceedings in the Territorial Supreme
Court. and he testified III the hearing
herein, when examined in relation 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
WIN the case and the acton being taken
| by the attorneys therein.
There is no principle of practice better
settled in our American law than that
an appearance in Court by an attorney
for client carries with II the presump-
tion of authority to appear" CBonnifield
VS.. Thorp. Il Fed, 924)
1T is always presumed that an attorney
appearing and acting for a party to a
cause has authority to do so, and to do
all other acts necessary or incidental to
the proper conduct of the case. and the
burden OF proof rests on the party deny
ing such authority to sustain his denial
by clear preponderance of the evil
dcnce" U1ill vs. Mendenhall. q Wall.
L. s.. 49, Osborn VS.. u. S. Bank,
| Wheaton, L. s., 739)
And this is especially so in relation to
foreign corporations, which can only ap-
pear by attorney.
! The circumstance that the declaration
in suit by corporation was signed
and filed by an attorney at law. for the
plaintiff. is sufficient evidence that the
plaintiff appeared--as a corporation must
lappear-by attorney" state Bank VS..
Bell, Ind, 127)
1t Is clear that managing officers of
corporations have power TO employ at
torneys and counsellors without delega-
tlons of power or formal resolutions to
that effect. And while Mr.. Pain claims
that he did not authorize these attorneys,
Messrs. Holmes a. Stanley or Paul Neu-
mann, Esq, now deceased to act as the
attorneys for the corporation complain
ant In that case yet the whole of the
proceedings in the case, including the
appearance In Court of the manager of
the complainant tand its only representa-
tive in these Islands) during the proceed
ings, ana the silence Of complainant ever
since the read ton of the decision, shows
that II tacity admitted to that Court the
authority of the attorneys to act in the
matter. And again, while Paul Neu-
mann. Esq, has since deceased, yet
Messrs. Holmes d Stanley are here and
if the complainant so desired, could
have had their testimony in this pro-
ceeding.
The decision of the Supreme Court con
strung the charters of the parties to
hereunder, including the right to lay the
track on King street on the part OF re-
spCndent herein for n distance of more
than seventeen hundred feet thereon, Is
binding upon this Court in the event
there was no Federal question involved.
Western Union Telegraph Co. VS.. Call
Publishing Co., Isl L. S, 80: Eagan VS..
Hart. 1c5 L. S, ISIS; Chicago q Burlington
vs.. Chicago. 1GG L. S, 2i2; Gardner vs..
Bonscll, $50 L. s.. 1862.
1t was said, in the case # the Guaran-
tee Trust Co. vs. Galveston, lO7 Fed, 800
that:
1--WE follow the Interpretation given to
the statutes of Il state as appears by the
decision of the Supreme Court of the
state"
First National Bank VS.. Chehals Coun-
ty, 1G6 L. S, 40: Mobiles vs.. Georgia. lGS
L. s., 39S; Fordice vs.. Dubosa 81 Texas,
7S.
No 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 cOnstitut OGal q 1oStiuu inVolv-
ed in that the granting Of the franchise
to the Rap d Transit ana Land Company
was In violation Of the prior valid rights
of the complainant but / find further in
the submission OF facts To the Supreme
Court that it was admitted that the said
Honolulu Rapid Transit ana Land Com
, pany is the lawful holder of a franchise
granted to Clinton G. Bailentyne and
others by Acts 80 and 20 of the Session
Laws of 1850"
Can the complainant, after admitting
in one court of competent jur sdCtion the
lawful holding OF "A franchise by the re-
spondcnt. and have the case tried upon
that theory, then come into another
Court of different jurisdiction and deny
the validity of that franchise in an at
tempt to invoke the jurisdiction of that
other Court In a proceeding in equity?
This Court VIII not consider such an
attempt
1t does not seem necessary to pass up
on the question whether the complainant
has complied with all the statutes of the
Territory of Hawaii in relation to for
eGn corporations in rendering the deci-
sion 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 Transit and
Land Company the right to lay track
ON King street for more than seventeen
hundred fect?"
To which question the Supreme Court
after an exhaustive inquiry into the va
lrious statutes and franch ses under which
the two parties were acting, decided in
the affirmative And that is substantial
iy the only question now before this
Court. and which question has been set
tied by the decision of the Supreme Court
Of the Territory.
This Court will not listen to collateral
attack made In this case upon the judg-
ment of the Supreme Court of the Ter
/, ritory. 1t is an established principle of
equity Jurisprudence, elementary in its
nature. that "he who seeks equity must
do equity" And that he who asks equit-
able relief must come into court with
clean hands. The complainant has not
come into this Court with clean hands.
G0lliher VS. Hopkins, li5 u. s.. 36S; VII
lard vs. Wood, l6 L. s., 500; whitney vs.
Fox, l66 L. s., 6S7; Penn. Mutual Life
Insurance Co. VS.. Austin, l6S u. S, 69S.
MessrS. Dunno and De Bolt, attorneys
for the complainant, this Court holds