Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1902-02-13


ment of an order made by defendants
under statute. requiring complain
ants to supply gas to customers at
rate which is alleged to be so unreas-
onably low that the enforcement of the
order will result in depriving complain.
ant OF its rights under the Fourteenth
both on the ground of
a prevention Of multiplicity of suits
between complainant and its custom.
ers and because such suit is the most
approved method of determining tho
questions involved.
The dignity and value of the right
assailed. and the power and authority .
of the source from which the assault |
proceeds are elements to be consider
ed in the computation OF damages If |
they are to be not only compensation |
for the direct wrong and injury in
volved in the apprehension of its rep. |.
etition," Barry VS.. Edmunds, 1lG U. s. .
$50.
Injury to Plaintiffs.
And while II is true that the com.
plainants did not all establish a clear
peCuniary loss, yet II is apparent that
each of them was injured in his indi.
vidual right to free commerce in the
infringement thereof. by this disCrim.
mating statute, and in addition to this
common injury sustained by all, there
was, In the estimation of the Court.
sufficient specific pecuniary loss shown
by at least two of the COmplainants,
tO-wit: Peacock & Co and l.. II. Dee.
in damage to each of them by reason
of the falling off of sales since the IL
suanCe 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 1t appears that this
injury will be continuing one. tho
amount of which cannot now be clear
ly estimated in dollars and cents.
1t would seem apparent therefore
that the jurisdiction is shown by al
least two of the complainants.
THE general principle Ills that
/ If several persons be Joined in suit
in equity or admiralty, and have II
common and individual interest,
though separable as between them.
selves, the amount OF their joint claims
or liability will be the test of jurisdio.
ton, but where their interests are dis
tinCt and they are joined for the sake
of convenience only and because they
form class of parties whose rights or
liabilities arose out of the same trans.
actions or have relation to a common
fund or mass of property sought to be
administered such distinct demands
or liabilities cannot be aggregated to.
haVs F,, Ii
Court jurisdiction by appeal. but each
must stand or fall by itself alone.
Clay VS.. Field, 1873 U. S. 40; the SAM
Court saying in the case of Schwed
VS.. Smith LOG L. s., p. 1888:
THE theory is that, although the
proceeding is in form but one suit, its
legal effect Is the same as though sen
arate suits had been begun on each NJ
the separate causes of action" Holt
VS.. Bergevin. 60 Fed. /: Putney VS.
Whitmirc, GG Fed. 1856; Nashville C.
& st. l.. Ry. Co. vs.. Mcconnell, 81
Fed. 725.
Constitutional Rights.
To this question of jurisdiction there
Is another aspect besides that of the
pecuniary nature already discussed
and that Is in relation to the infringe
ment of the constitutional right of tho
plaintiffs Ito all privileges and immu
mites enjoyed by the citizens of tho
Territory. in the sale of foreign prod
ucts within the Territory and their
right to be free from all Discriminate,
legislation.
Subdivision 1 of section of artiCl,
| of the Constitution of the Unite.
States prescribes that
"All duties, imposts and excuses chal
be uniform throughout the United
States" subdivision of said sector
s also providing that Congress shal
have power ito regulate commerce
with foreign nations, and among tn
several States and with the Indiar
tribes"
While the so-called Equal Righti
, Clause" section of Article " OF tn,
Constitution provides that:
THE citizens of each State shall bC
, entitled to all the privileges and immu
. mites of the citizens Of the severa
States"
Under the state Of facts disclosed II
this case, are the complainants Will,
! selling the beers of the different per
, sons and corporations, citizens of 9th
. er States, for whom they respectlvel.
. act as agents in Honolulu on an eQua
, footing in free market with the man
ufacturers of home brewed beeTR
Sections 479 to 1873 of Part V, char
ter II of the Penal Laws, and undo
which laws some twenty-five license
were issued by the Treasurer OF tn
/ Territory, as appears In evidence. t.
= gether authorize the Treasurer to Is
. sue licenses for one year for fee o
=. tax OF $3.50 to any person who desire
e TO sell malt liquors manufactured Il
( Honolulu" by the glass or in any 9th
CT quantity less than Ave gallons, NJ
on the execution OF a bond that h
f will not sell or otherwise dispose Il
a on the premises for which he is i
o censed any wines, malt liquors or spit
i it of any description whatever; ami o.
l. so that he will not store or allow t
Il be stored on the premises for whic
n he Is licensed, any wines, malt liquor
d or any spirits of any description what
d soever except such beer manufacun
@ ed in Honolulu. E"
|. The wholesale vending of spirit
n Gus liquors" under section 429 OF in
i Penal Laws in which one OF the p'aiI
O tifs is engaged, and for which an Al
y nual license fee Of $500 Is require,
e simply entities the licensee to 50
:. liquors in the original package in
r. ported and in no other manner. FGu