The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1902-06-23
LOSES
ONCE AGAIN.
Rapid Transit May
Build Road to
Waikiki.
mo INJUNCTION
FROM HUMPHREYS
Another Application for Injunction
Will Be Presented 10 Judge
E,tee Today.

BY the decision OF Judge Humphreys
on sa1urday>the Honolulu Rapid Tran
sit a Land Company Is allowed to COM
plcte its extension through the McCui-
IN tract TO Waikiki. which on the same
day was finished as far as the Waikiki
turn. The temporary Injunction Tor
merly granted by Judge Humphreys at
the instance OF the alleged Chinese les
sors Of the Mccuiiy property Is dis
solved. and the defendants are at Id
erty TO continue their construction |
work through the disputed premises |
The opinion Is based largely upon the
publIc utility OF the Rapid Transit. as
well upon the failure OF the plaintins
TO prove title TO the property
Manager Pain has not. however, CIV
en- up hope of stopping the inroads OF
the electric traction upon what ne
claims Is his exclusive property ana
suit somewhat similar in nature TO the
one decided by Judge Humphreys Is
already under way in the Federal
Court In this case the Hawaiian
Tramways Co. comes out openly as the
plaintiff and asks Judge Estee Tor an
Injunction 10 AhA
upon King street. because of the al
legged violation OF the rights OF Pain
The hearing OF the new case upon an
application for temporary injunction
comes UP In the United states Court
this morning and more Interesting de-
yelopments are to be anticipated ram
already has given notice of his inten-
ton TO appeal and will carry the cases.
which have been universally decided
against him. TO the United states Su-
preme Court. On different propositions
affecting his franchise and the rights
90 the Honolulu Rapid Transit & Land
Co. TO the use OF city streets. decisions
adverse to Pain have already been CIV
len by the Supreme Court. United States
Court. Judge Humphreys and Judge
Gear. In several OF the courts he has
had two and three adverse opinions
The case OF the sun Kwong Mau Co.
vs Waikiki Lard & Loan Association
and Honolulu Rapid Transit & Land
Co. was argued Saturday morning very
briefly. Judge Humphreys inquired be-
fore the argument began IL IL was ad-
mitted that the original plaintiffs had
DISPOSED OF their interests in the dis
/ puted property. before or since the suit
i had been Instituted. To this Attorney
Breckons for the plaintiffs replied that
/ i've OF the plaintiffs had done so. but
three stfii retained their interest in the
lease. He commended. however. that the
suit should be considered as IL was.
/ when begun. and the subsequent acts
i OF a part OF the plaintiffs did not AZ
Il feet the case as a whole. Mr.. McClan-
II ahan replied briefly and argued that
Il Pain. who was not "A party TO the suit
i In any way. was at the bottom Of the
i matter. and that the plaintiffs were
i not entitled 10 the relief by injunction
n entitled To anything the proper pro-
csdure was through equity and they
would be awarded whatever damages
were shown TO have been done 10 them.
them.
Immediately at the conclusion OF the
argument Judge Humphreys awarded
his decision In favor OF the defendants.
ldissoiving the injunction already grant
cd and dlsmissing the complaint.
The authorities are uniform" said
the c0ur. that where an injunction
would operate TO the Inconvenience OF
the public and whore the balance be-
tween the rights and wrongs OF plain
tln are nicely balanced. the court VIII
BE- extremely reluctant to grant an IN
junction"
The Court referred further TO the
! legislative act under which the Homo
|, lulu Rapid Transit * Land Company
. was operating. and said that by reason
Of this u became a public corporation,
in which the public at large had an IN
terest. and though this gave II no right
to override private property owners
yet the court was compelled To consid-
cr the great interest the public had IN
the cOmpany'S work
THE Court will take judicial knowi-
edge OF the conditions In this commu-
uify- and the fact that the Rapid Tran
sit Company Is filling long-felt want
by providing a better. cleaner anc
more rapid means OF transportation.
said Judge Humphreys The building
of this road VIII increase the value o.
property and benefit the health OF ths
CITY by making swamp lands more val
liable. so that they Will be filled in
Judge Humphreys held also that the
title TO the property had not been sat
fsfactoriiy proven. that the Chinese ap-
reared to have sold whatever Interests
they might have possessed and thal
Pain was apparently more interested
than the original plaintiffs in the out
@orue OF the case. The fact that IL was
admitted that the Hawaiian Tramway:
Company had been furnishing ths
,,nds Tor the prosecution OF the cas-
,vas also taken into consideration oS
Even m the plaintiffs were damaged
bv the alleged wrongful acts OF the de
PENDANTS. they had their remed,
through equityN proceedings Judg'
Humphreys. in dlsmissing the case
caIIed attention also 10 ruling which
H. mad made In opening IL. which n
rC,y considered to have been erroneous
This was the UNFOLDING or the motor
rrad.. by plaintiffs. striking out IN
(.rtgon Of the answer as .mperttnen
t,-..atfse 90 the reference % Manage
| fs.fn - the Tramways Company To
e,-Jl.rce ~ the suit showed that Pai
had been connected with tho case. an
49, Court stated that new author u
S,d beeu found which convinced hiu
,Est the original ruling was wrong.
rEAFFIRMs ORDER