The Honolulu republican. [volume] (Honolulu, T.H.) 1900-1902, 1901-12-05

Mr.. Mechanism
Il was also uacontFzdictet that Mr.
Pain was present IL the said Supreme
Court and listened TO the argument
made therein at that time. and AZ nc
tine Until the institution OF the pro
ceedings in this court has he objected
20 said submission on the part Of the
complainant or even 20 the decision
Of the court
The case was decided BY the Su
-feme Court Of the Territory on the
15st day OF April. 1901. and that dscis
Ion remains the Law Of that case BY
which the rights OF the parties in this
case 10 the use Of King street were
settled
II appears further from the evi
dence in this proceeding that from
1859 10 the present time Mr. w. n
Pain has been and still is the sole
manager and representative OF the
said plaintiff and petitioner in this
Territory and as such be has had
control. direction and management OF
all the transactions OF said corpora.
ton in said Honolulu. Including
the employment and discharge OF at
torneys and counsellors and the con
troll and management of all litiga-
ton
The complainant IS now trying 10
avoid the effects of the decision of
The Supreme Court OF the Territory
in the case referred 10. alleging that
no statement Of facts was agreed up
on By il or By any person authorized
10 agree upon such statement OF facts,
and that il had no knowledge OF any
such submission. notwithstanding that
Mr. W. H. Pain is its exclusive repre-
sentative here and has the manage
ment and control of ali litigation OF
the company. and is now acting as
the manager and representative Of
the company in instituting the pro
ceedings in this court. Mr.. Pain be
ing also the only person testifying TO
the effect that complainant is not
bound by the aforesaid decision. and
that the said agreement and state
ment Of facts was without the au-
thOrity or knowledge of the complain
ant
II has been shown in this proceed
ing that Mr. Pain was in the Supreme
Court during the argument and sub
mission of the facts in that case. He
himself testifies that he was present;
and il is uncontradicted that be is the
only officer or agent of the corpora
ton in Honolulu Now. if from 1889
to the present time Mr.. Pain has had
the exclusive control and manage
merit Of all the business of the com
plainant including the employment
and discharge of attorneys and coun-
sellers and the control and manage
ment of all litigation" he must have
had power to control this litigation.
if what he swearS TO in his affidavit is
true. And if he had power to control
all of the litigation of complainant
from the year 1889, why did he sit
quietly by without making a protest
TO the court or TO any one else on be-
half of the company ne represented
until final Judgment was entered in
that case against his company, and
not even then. II the attorneys there
in were not acting within his author
iZation, he had the right to discharge
them. and it was his duty to his prin-
CipaI to discharge them and to make
summary application TO the court
for redress.
He admits he was in court during
tae proceedings in the Territorial SUI
preme Court, and he testified in the
hearing therein, when examined in re-
lation TO the stipulation for submits
sion of further facts in the Supreme
Court matter, that he knew some
question arose as to whether they
should do something and they did,
his entire familiarity with
the case and the action 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 a client carries with
il the presumption of authority to ap-
pear" (Bonfield VS. Thorp, II Fed.
924).
Ii is clear that managing officers OF
have power to employ at
torneys and counsellors without dele
cations of power or formal resolu-
tons to that effect And while Mr..
Pain claims that he did not authorize
these attorneys, Messrs. Holmes &
Stanley or Paul Neuman. Esq, now
deceased. to act as the attorneys for
the corporation complainant in that
case. yet the whole of the proceed
ings in the case, including the appear
ance in court of the manager of the
(and its only representa-
tive in these Islands) during the pro-
ceedings, and the silence of complain
ant ever since the rendition of the
decision. shows that it tacitly admit
ted 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 complain
ant so desired could have had their
testimony in this proceeding.
The decision of the Supreme Court
the charters of the parties
to that action and their respective
rights hereunder, including the right
10 lay the track on King street on the
part OF respondent herein for a dis
lance of more than seventeen hun
ired feet thereon. is binding upon this
court in the event there was no Fed
eral question involved
No Federal question appears TO be
involved in the proceedings before
this court. and no argument was pre-
sented in favor of any such question
L is true the petition of complainant
alleges that the granting of the fran
,hise 20 the Rapid Transit and Land
Company was in violation of the prior
ralid rights Jf Tie complainant but
ind further in the submission of facts