The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1904-01-13
econtinued from page -

Continued from page -
the plain intent of the law. None Of
the sureties ON the bond presented
have justified in the sum of $3.50 900.
In conclusion I would state that. in
any opinion, the bond presented by the
Hon. Curtis P. Iaukea does not con
form to the law and is not such bond
as is required by the statute.
Respectfully submitted,
WILLIAM T. RAWLINS,
District Attorney.
Judge Whiting asked whether there
Mr. Rawiins replied that his opinion
merely related to the validity of the
document.
Il have noticed, however, that Mr..
Iaukea swears that he is worth so
xuueh.'' said Mr.. Rawlins. He is not
required to do so.'
Mr.. Gilman moved, seconded by Luz
cas-. that the bond be returned 20 Mr..
Iaukea, together with the opinion.
NO ARGUMENT FOR MAHoE.
Mahoe then made objection on the
ground that the bond showed sufficient
security and therefore. there was no
need of argument in the premises.
At this juncture Iaukea entered his
protest
When the smoke had cleared Mr.. Gill
man answered Mahoe. He said that
Mahoe's contention was that these
sureties might be worth millions
apiece. These were not the grounds
on which he, personally. made objec-
ton. Each person as surety on a bond
may be well qualified to show himself
worth million of dollars That was
not the question before the Board
The question was whether or not the
bond as submitted was legal and would
hold water in case it should have to go
Into court. a bond must be filed.
which if necessary. could be taken into
a court. Mr.. Gilman did not want a
bond which might be thrown out OF
the courts when offered.
Lucas said that Mahoe was laboring
under a wrong impression.
Chairman Hooking said the form of |
bond in the County Act was the same |
used by the Federal Government. In |
his own experience he had seen a bond |
rejected and sent back to Washington |
where it was declared void. The very /
points raised against the Iaukel bond
were the points which invalidated the |
Federal bond. The Federal govern
ment was generally pretty careful, and
If it rejected the bond for the reason
that the Supervisors proposed to reject
Iaukea's bond, they were following
safe precedent. He agreed that the adj
vice of the County Attorney should bel
followed.
Mr.. Robinson agreed with the opin-
ion of the District Attorney.
The vote was then taken as follows:
Ayes-Gilman, Lucas. Robinson,
4.
Noes-Mahoe, Kealoi1a, Harvey. 3.
SUPREME COURT TEST.
After the meeting Judge Whiting for
Mr.. Iaukea, and, District Attorney
Rawlins agreed to take the matter into
the Supreme Court this morning on an
agreed statement of facts to secure, if
possible, before this afternoon, an opin- :
ion from that body. as to the validity I
Of Mr.. Rawlins' opinion.
KAILIMAT wITHDRAwS BOND.
Mr.. Gilman for the committee COM
posed of Mr.. Harvey and himself re-
ported on the KaiIinai bond sureties. ,
He stated that Mr.. Kailimai agreed to
withdraw the bond and to present a
lew one with other sureties.
MORNING SESSION. f
At the morning session of the County,
Supervisors held at a. m. Curtis Tau I
,ea failed to show up to present his 7
,ond as Tax Assessor, through some 2
Other matters were taken up; includ- c
ng communication of w. L. Frazee, u
superintendent of the Government
lectrfc light station in Nuuanu, to
which was appended an inventory of D
handed over to him by the il
,ra,-irterdert of PUBLIC Works. The Z