The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-12-11
MANOAMUS
PRESENTED
Powers of Judge
Defined by the
Counsel.
SUPREME COURT
HEARS ARGUMENT
Interesting Points Are Raised in
Mandamus Preceding in Prog.
ress Block Case.

The Supreme Court yesterday morning
heard the petition for a mandamus to
compel Judge Humphreys to sign the de-
cree of foreclosure for sale of the Prog
ress block. E. B. McClanahan appeared
in behalf of the petitioner. the KapIolani
Estate, and Judge Silliman appeared for
the defendant, c. s. Desky, and later it
developed that he was also representing
the First Circuit Court.
Mr.. McClanahan, in opening. stated
that he would try to ptSseut both sides
Of the controversy, as Judge Humphreys
was not represented. and he thereupon
proceeded to quote authorities. both for
and against his petition for mandamus
He stated that the First Circuit Court
was composed of two judges. either of
whom may hold the court. The act of
the legislature provided for three judges,
each of whom may do what any of them
might dc. The court has certain juris-
dictional power, but has not this power
in equity cases; the legislature having
seen fl to limit this power. He contend
ed also that no judge has power outside
of the district provided by the legisla-
ture, and that the three judges on Oahu
had only power on this island. They
have intermlngled jurisdiction, something
more than concurrent jurisdiction Il is
the act of the court. not OF the First or
Second judge, and the act Of one judge
is the act of another. Mr.. McClanahan
also quoted Rule % of the rules of the
court. which stated that judge once
assuming Jurisdiction must carry it
through to the end; but he was OF the
opinion that this rule was no longer in
force, and had never been followed
Mr. silliman replied at some length, de-
Tending the position taken by Judge
Humphreys. He contended that there
was no distinction TO be drawn between
Judge and court in an action q law, as
in that proceeding Judge is but por-
ton of the court. In chambers matters.
however, he said the distinction was
clearly recognized, the Judge was an in
dependent court for most purposes; the
judges were different chancellors in equi-
~. and one court cannot delegate author.
ity to another, when a matter has been
partially heard. He further contended
that the rules OF the court had been alb
Tog1ted only where they were in conflict
with the law. He said that the author
lty was very clear that a writ OF man
damus should not issue. Humphreys GER
tainly had a discretionary right to refuse
to hear a matter which had been present.
ed to Judge Gear. and while the latter is
only from the Territory for a hoiidly CT
some other reason.
Mr.. Mechanism replied briefly. stat
ing that this was an important matter.
and was not discretionary with a court.
He said that the general principle had
been fairly well settled that when IA de-
c!siOn is made the accompanying decree
should be signed. He further stated that
1t was n matter of practice in Honolulu
to present all petitions. addressed to the
First Judge of the First Circuit, and was
by him allotted out to the three judges
If these were independent courts then
the petitions should be addressed to the
individual judges. and 1t was clearly the
intention of Congress to make but one
court, with the judges as part of IT.
The Supreme Court took the matter
under advisement. and adjourned until
the first Monday in January.
DECISION IN TAX CASE.
The Tax Appeal Court was sustained
for the~f1rst time yesterday in the deci.
sion of the Supreme Court upon the ap-
peal Of the Hawaii Land Company.
The appeal was taken by the the asses
scr in order TO determine the method OF
ascertaining the value of Ieasehold In
terest. and IN the opinion. written by
Chief Justice Frear. this question Is
clearly defined
The return of the Hawaii Land Com
pany upon the property at Palawa was
$500, which was increased by the asses
SCR to 1880. The original return was
sustained
The syllabus of the court Is as follows:
a low valuation Is placed upon an or
binary lease of small tract of land
made only few months before the date
OF assessment, there being no evidence
that the rent reserved was less than
the rental value or that the land had
since increased in value.
The combined values of the lessons
and the lessee's interests may, according
10 the circumstances. be greater or less
than or equal 10 the value that the land
would have if it were not subject to the
lease.