The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1902-07-01
PAIN AGAIN
THE LOSER
CONTINUED from Page ~

steam railways, holding that a court
should enjoin the operation of a railway
only with the utmost heSitancy ana
only in extreme cases.
Mr. Dunno asked the respondent to
admit that an appeal had been taken
to the United States Supreme Court
from the Hawaiian court. This Mr..
McClanahan did, qualifying, however,
by saving that writ of error had been
ia ken out months after the decision
was given and long prior to the COM
mencement of the suit in United
States court.
Mr.. McClanahan then moved for
dismissal of the bill, but Mr.. Breckons
objected 1.-The only way to dismiss the
case is by demurrer or upon an answer,
and not by this proceeding, he SAID
IF YOU refuse the Injunction
..yVbat is there to enjoin, 1 would like
to know" interrupted the Court. WHO
can L enjoin?"
Mr. McClanahan then again asked to
present his side of the case, claiming
that the dill should be dismissed rms
the Court finally allowed, though the
attorneys for the complainant objected
and insisted that the Courts order de-
nying the Injunction settled the matter
Mr. Breckons wanted the case trleo on
it's merits but Mechanism maintained
that he must first be heard on the rule
to show cause. Breckons retorted that
the last thing the Rapid Transit Com
pany wanted was a trial on its merits.
Mr.. McClanahan, in opening, SAID
that the complainant had started out
on the wrong hypothesis, that the SUD
mission to the Supreme Court was
final and decided the right of the Rapid
| Transit Company to use any part or
King street After the decision OF the
Supreme Court~the matter had run on
| for months and months, with no move
on the part of Pain, the respondent ali
| this time expanding thousands ana
thousands of dollars in extending ana
iynprovine its lines THE next thing
we hear" continued he, is a SUIT IN
| United States Court; which was declu-
ed against this plaintiff. 1t is not rlght,
! 1 say, to take up the time of the court
| in listening to arguments upon case
| in which the merits have already been
| passed upon in Supreme Court only
| when some peculiar damage not COM
mon to the public at large is SHOWN
can a new suit be heard. None at all,
I insist exists in this case. rms Dill
| of the plaintiff attacks the validity OF
| our franchise. a. subject which has al
ready been passed upon. and which IN
| a previous action was admitted TO De
| good Only when a peculiar INJURY Is
shown can the corporate existence OF
| this respondent be questioned, and L
submit that the mouth of this plaintlff
was stopped by the Supreme Court
Court was adjourned at this point
until o'clock
AFTERNOON SESSION.
In the afternoon Mr.. McClanahan re-
| surned his argument, asking that the
bill of complaint be dismissed on the
ground that the matter therein con-
tanned had already been adjudicated.
He concluded with the statement that
the charter of the Rapid Transit Com
pany could not be attacked by the
lTramways Company nor by any private
Individual That is within the prov
lince of the Attorney General he con-
lcluded 1.-The Honolulu Rapid Transit
Company charter makes it in a meas
lure a public or quasi-public corpora
ton, the public is interested in the
company for the franchise provides
that the earnings of the company IN
excess of eight per cent shall go INTO
the public treasury. This fact should
| be ia ken into consideration, also, by
lvour honor in rendering decision
Mr. Breckons replied to the argument
| of respondent. alleging again that the
charter was void, because passed py a
legislature that had no legal existence,
and arguing that the Rapid Transit GO.
was an interloper and trespasser upon
the streets of Honolulu.
Judge Estee said that these questions
| were now pending on appeal but
Breckons said they were not.
''Wen, there were about 16 exceptions
. land it is rather strange If this one is
not among Them.
Mr. BreckonS in his argument stated
that the RAPID Transit Company Dill
was passed by the Legislature on July
9TH 1898 the same day of the passage
of the Newlands resolution by Con-
gress, but that the latter bill was pass
ed at O'Clock in the afternoon, While
! | the franchise bill was not passed until
| two hours later. Consequently the Re-
public of Hawaii had not been IN exist
ence at the time the bill became a law
If you kick us out of court" con-
tinued Breckons. when interrupted by
the Court.
"Oh, no one is going to kick you out
of court" said Judge Estee.
"Pn change that expression, replleo
Breckons.
Judge Estee. without waiting for any
thing further, proceeded to pass upon
] the case.
THE DECISION.
II am not going to decide whether OF
mot this charter is good or bad, said
1.-THE Court. II may have pretty strong
opinions on the subject, but there is
mo need of expressing them here.
don't see how any court can do any
. thing different than to uphold the re-
lspondent. upon these pleadings. Las
iOctober when this plaintiff came into
this court of equity, the court refused
| to take jurisdiction, on practically the
| same matters which had been decided
by the Supreme Court of Hawaii. The
decision of that court certainly meant
| something, and that court decided thai
| the Honolulu Rapid Transit and Lane
Company did have the right to the use
| of more than 100 feet upon King street
| This is not a court of appellate 1uris
| diction and / can't say whether the
| Supreme Court of the Territory was
| right or wrong. I did say at that time