The Hawaiian gazette., 1904-01-15
|AUKEk'S BOND IS NOT
ACCEPTED BY THE BOARD
Curtis Iaukea Attends the Session
and Leaves It in a Bad
Temper.

surety on any such bond unless resi-
dent and freeholder. or householder
within the Territory, and worth in real
! and personal property, or both. situate
in the Territory, the amount of his un-
dertaking, over and above all sums for
which he is liable, exclusive of property
exempt from executions and forced
sale, provided, however, that nothing
herein contained shall prevent any Off
Ger from giving a bond of a surety
company in such manner as may be
provided by law
! 1t is plain from the reading of the
above quoted section, that the inten-
tion of the Legislature, was to make
the principal and each one of his sure
| ties responsible for all the funds which
might come into the hands of the prin-
cipal, and that no surety could limit
his liability by qualifying in any spe-
ciiic amount less than that of the prin-
cipal. but that he must be liable in
such amount his principal.
In the bond presented the several
sureties have limited their liability by
declaring that they are only liable in
certain specific amount. This, in my
opinion, is in direct contra adiction to
tllt pam lllt'Ht VI lile law. -NOIle vi
the sureties on the bond presented
have justified in the sum of $15OOOO.
In conclusion / would state that. in
my 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
were any technical errors in the bond.
Mr.. Rawlins replied that his opinion
merely related to the validity of the
document.
II have noticed, however, that Mr.
Iaukea swears that he is worth SO
much" said Mr.. Rawlins.a He is not
required to do So"
Mr.. Gilman moved, seconded by Iu-
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.. Gil
man answered Mahoe. He said that
Mahoe's contention was that these
sureties might be worth millions
apiece. These We're not the grounds
on which he. personally, made objec-
ton. Each person as surety on bond
may be well qualified to show himself
worth a 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
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
We're 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 We're following
safe precedent. He agreed that the ad-
vice of the County Attorney should be
followed.
Mr. Robinson agreed with the opin-
ion of the District Attorney.
The vote was then taken as follows:
Ayes-Gilman, Lucas, Robinson.
Hooking, 4.
Noes-Mahoe, Kealoha, 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, il
possible before this afternoon, an opin-
ion from that body, as to the validity
of Mr.. Rawlins' opinion.