The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1902-07-04
PRIMO CASE IN
COURT OF
APPEALS
Motion Is Made to
Suspend the
Decree.
IN THE
HIGHER COURT
Treasurer Wright Claims That the
Injunction is the Result of
a Beer War.

| The motion of Treasurer Wright to
beer case will be argued before the
Court of Appeals at San Francisco ear
| ly in this month. In the meantime half
dozen saloons operating under the Ii
censes declared invalid by Judge Estee
have been closed up and within few
months there will be none in operation
in the city.
One of the chief points relied upon by
the defendant in the support of the
motion before the Court of Appeals is
that the Treasurer had no opportunity
to make showing, and that the plain
tiffs in the case are in reality rival
liquor dealers, who wish to drive com
petitor out of business.
The points raised in the brief filed in
the Court of Appeals saying why the
motion should be granted are in sub
stance as follows:
1. The motion should be granted be-
cause the whole proceeding from the
title of the cause to the entry of the
lecree diScloseS that the suit is one
against the Territory, over which the
court has no jurisdiction, and that the
by injunction the liquor traffic within
said Territory as between local and
foreign manufacturers of beer.
3 The motion should be granted by
this court because the court below had
no power to enter it's decree for want of
suitable subject matter
3. The motion should be granted be- |
cause the case was not tried to de- !
termine rights of parties before the !
court, but for the purpose of entering |
a legislative decree.
4 The motion should be granted be- |
cause the court below had no jurisdjc- |
ton to adjudge and decree that the |
statute in question was null and void; |
and, moreover, because it had no juriS- |
1iction to issue an Injunction COM
and enjoining an office of the |
government, his successors N Office and
all other persons acting in aid or as |
of him or them, from doing
OF permitting to be done any act or
thing whatever under the annulled
statute.
s. The motion should be granted be-
cause the act attacked was perfectly !
valid when enacted and was sanctioned l
and ratified, except possibly as to its
features, by the very
act of Congress that is said to have
rendered it void.
6. The motion should be granted be-
cause it is apparent from the record
that the plaintiffs real cause of COM
plant is that their licenses are cost
those of their competitors are costing
but two hundred and fifty dollars each.
But under the rule as announced in
Herman VS.. Rinker they cannot be
heard to complain because they are
selling liquors other than beer.
Concluding their argument the appel
ants say:
1T is therefore finally submitted that
this court has jurisdiction to hear and
ought to grant this motion because it
IS manifest that the court below had no
to issue the injunction in
the manner and form in which the
same was issued. for the reason that
there was no proper party defendant
before that court and that the suit was
virtually one against the Territory of
because there was no proper
subject matter authorizing the court to
ssue an injunction under the princi-
oles and practice of courts of equity
because The suit was not tried To de-
ermfne The rights Of parties before the
curt but to adjust the liquor traffic of
he Territory between outside and local
not parties to the record;
because the court had no jurisdiction
O enter a decree annulling and repeal
ng statute and restraining a govern
mental official and his successors in Of
Ice and all other persons acting III, aid
IT assistance OF him or them from do
ng on permitting to be done any act
II thing under or by virtue of the stat
lite so attempted TO be annulled by the
ecree of the court; and finally be-
ause 1t is apparent from an inspection
( the record that the plaintiffs of rec
I'd could not complain because Ii
enses were issued under the act at
aciled for a smaller license fee than
hey were required to pay for their Ii
enses and the manufacturers OF beer,
Tho were not parties to the record.
oCld not complain under the establisn-t
d rules OF equity which confine the ad-
ldications of the court TO parties be-
ore il.
we believe. moreover. that this
ourt will grant this motion at this
ne for the reason that this defend
1T. who is a high Territorial official.
dough fully convinced that the court
y - a ,+sy =.