The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-11-07
SEEKS TO
ENJO|N
Federal Aid Asked
by Tramways
Company.
TO STOP RAPID
TRANSIT EXTENSION
Humphreys Refuses to Grant In.
junction, and Case is Taken
Before JudsesEstee.

Baffled in an attempt to secure an in
junction in Circuit Court to restrain the
Honolulu Rapid Transit Company from
building into King street. the Hawai-
day, within a few hours for an injunc-
ton in the United States Court. Though
Judge Estee was urged to grant 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 & 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
had In former case decided that the
exclusive right to 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
concerning 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
its behalf TO consent to the said sub
mission" II Is further alleged that
Paul Neumann and Holmes & 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
had rendered it's decision. Consequent
of no effect. The petitioner also al
leges that defendant under said decision
claims the right to lay street railway
tracks on King street, in derogation OF
the prior rights of the plaintiff. and is
now laying track upon King street, OBJ
structing the street and impairing the
beneficial enjoyment by the plaintiff OF
it's aforesaid franchise. A temporary
injunction is asked restraining the de-
PENDANTS from further interfering with
the rights OF plaintiff.
Mir. Dunno in presenting the matter
to the court called the attention of the
court to the statute relative to the sub
mission of an agreed case to the
Supreme Court. and contended in such
civil cases the higher court had only
appellate Jurisdiction, and not original
Jurisdiction. 1T appears" said the at
;orney in conclusion. that this proceed
ing never originated In a Circuit Court,
and il could not have been the subject
OF civil action in Supreme Court. Con-
sequently the whole proceeding is null !
and void and Of no effect"
Judge Humphreys held that jurisdic-
ton could not be conferred by consent.
nor was assumption of jurisdiction suf- (
fcient. If the Supreme Court assumes
to act in a matter in which II has no
the court said, the entire
proceeding IS null and void, and Is re-
spected by no one. But taking out the
question of jurisdiction: this court has
held In the case of J. a. McCandless. !
superintendent of Public Works, VS.. /!
The Hawaiian Tramways Co. that the :
Tramways company did not have an +
exclusive franchise to operate cars on I
King street. and while the Honolulu /!
Rapid Transit & Land Co was not !
party TO the said suit. the plaintiff in :
this action was a party. and appeared /
IN court and submitted TO the juris-
liction OF this court. Therefore the ap- |
Dlication for an injunction viii be de-
MED"
IN FEDERAL COURT.
The next proceeding of the Tram
ways Company was an appeal to the (
United States court. and as soon as
court adjourned in the afternoon the /
matter was presented to Judge Estee |
N chambers. The Jurisdiction of the ]
Federal Court is obtained by an at
ack upon the constitutionaltty Of the |
charter under which the Honolulu !
Rapid Transit and Land Company is |
operating.
In the petition filed with Clerk Nal
ny Yesterday the Hawaiian TraInTays
company alleges that on August 30.
.SS4. William r. Austin and his asso-
,iates were given the right to operate
4 street railway upon the streets OF
Honolulu; that in September, 1856, the
;aid charter was amended and reenact-
ii and that thereafter and prior -