The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1902-02-14

; hearing, although no plea thereto was
/ raised by defendants answer.
In the matter of jurisdiction two
| questions are to be considered by the
/ court:
First: Is there constitutional ques-
ton involved in the case? and Second:
Do the facts in the case show an
1 amount of injury sufficient to enable
| the court to assume and retain juris-
diction in accordance with the provis-
ions of the law giving jurisdiction to
Circuit Courts in certain cases?
Section 1 of the act of 1883 Vol. %.
Statutes of the United States, p. 43D
amendatory of the act of 1875, provides
as follows:
1.-The Circuit Courts of the United
States shall have original cognizance
of all suits of a civil nature
al common law or in equity where the
matter in dispute exceeds exclusive OF
$1,000 and rising under the constitution
or laws of the United States
There is no doubt as to the bill of
complainants showing upon it's face a
sufficient case for the court to take
jurisdiction originally, alleging as it
does both the statutory amount of in
jury and the fact that the Territorial
statute complained of is in violation of
the Constitution of the United States;
and no plea having been filed on the
part of the defendant to the juris-
diction. AS was said by the Supreme
Court of the United States in the case
of Hartog VS.. Memory, 116 United
States SIS. parties cannot call upon the
court to go behind the record, except
by plea to the jurisdiction or some
other appropriate form of proceeding.
The case is not to be tried by the par
ties as if there was a plea to the juris-
diction when no such plea has been
fled
This is not an action at law. 1t is
an application for an injunction and
therefore within the equity jurisdiction
of the court. The injury complained of
If any be shown, is a continuing one,
and it has been frequently held that in
a suit in equity where an injunction is
asked for, the amount in dispute is not
the amount in controversy, but rather
the value of the object to be gained by
the BILL
After quoting several former decis-
ions as to the question of injury, the
court says:
And while it is true that the COM
plalnantS did not all establish clear
pecuniary loss, yet it is apparent that
each of them was injured in his indi-
vidual right to free commerce in the
infringement thereof, by this dscrim-
mating statute, and in addition to this
common injury sustained by all, there
was, in the estimation of the court, suf-
ficient specific pecuniary loss shown by
at least two of the compliments, to-
wit: Peacock & Co. and L. H. Dee, in
damage to each of them by reason of
the falling off of sales since the issu-
ance of the licenses to sell the Ho-
nolulu brewed beer to meet the re-
quirements of the statutes in relation
to the amount of damage involved in a
suit to give this court jurisdiction, and
especially as ii appears that this in
jury will be a continuing one, the
amount of which cannot now be clearly
estimated in dollars and cents
1T would seem apparent therefore
that the jurisdiction is shown by at
least two of the compliments
Referring to the question of consti-
tutonal rights, Judge Estee says:
Under the state of facts disclosed in
this case, are the complainants, while
selling the beers of the different per-
sons and corporations, citizens of 9TH
ar e, Nv,