The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1905-11-17
THE COURT
POWERLESS
Reasons for Refusing
Pioneer Mill Co.'S
Appeal.

decision elsewhere referred to, denying
the petition of defendant for a writ of
error from the Supreme Court, to car
ry the ejectment case of Meheula VS.
Pioneer Mill Co. to Washington, said
he had recognized all the difficulties on
each side of the contention
II have come to the conclusion he
went on TO say, that as a Justice Of
this court 1 have no authority, under
any act of this Territory or of Con-
gress that I have been able to learn
of, to sit as fryer of fact on the
question OF the value of the property
in controversy. The case would per-
haps be quite different if brought here
from the Circuit Court by appeal and
probably if brought here on writ of
error, the entire record then being be-
fore the Supreme Court"
AS the case had only come up on
a bill of exceptions, Justice Hartweu
had been unable from that to ascer-
tain the value of the property. If he
could infer fairly and reasonably that
the small piece of land in question
was probably worth $4,000 or more, he
thought it would be his duty to strain
a point and allow the writ, but the
fact is, he proceeded, that I really
don't infer from anything that [ have
seen that this piece of land is worth
in the market-whatever it might be
worth to the defendant that would not
be its market value-the amount now
claimed
The whole difficulty seemed to him
to be that if he then Internationally
denied the writ the plaintiff might pro-
coed to taking out a writ of posses
sion, which he assumed would render
the defendant helpless in proceedings
in the Supreme Court of the United
States.
In a running conversation between
the Justice and counsel, Mr.. McClana-
han for defendant took the same view
as the court, but Mr.. Ashford, refer
ring to California decisions, thought
the plaintiff would still be liable to the
defendant, Is in a. mortgage sale, and
he did not see why the Supreme Court
could not order a restitution.
Mr.. Ashford later declined to under
take that the plaintiff would not take
out writ of possession.
1t was shown that the amount of
land actually recovered was but 93-100
of an acre, and Mr.. McClanahan sug-
gested that it might be the site of de-
PENDANTS mill
There is the very point Justice
Hartwell responded. ''the value to an
individual, the defendant in this case,
is not as it seems to me the test of
the value contemplated under the Act
of Congress-" As there was nothing
before the court to show that the value
was over $4,000, Justice Hartwell said
with reference to that fact in conclu-
sion: & feel constrained-as you must
have seen. L have not come to this con-
clusion hastily and perhaps not will
lngly-to deny the writ, and I do So
Then, yesterday, in denying defend
ants motion for a thirty days stay,
Justice Hartwen referred to the affi-
daYit of defendants counsel, saying
that the railroad tracks were lying on
the property which were the means of
access to the defendants sugar MILL
eiiio llIetl ueIeuudll, II deprived OF the
land, could not use any other land for
the purpose, and that plaintiff had no
use for the land requiring it's imme-
date possession, hence could not be
injured by the delay asked.
He had consulted his associates on
the present motion, besides looking up
cases, with this result as he put it:
Each of my associates here feels
clear, after the argument, that the
power does not lie in this court to stay
this notice"-to the Circuit Court
clerk-''on the defendants motion and
have to say that fully coincide in
that opinion"
After disposing of the idea that the
court might assume the power under
Section 1880, Revised Laws, in the
clause, 'To take such other steps as
may be necessary for the promotion
of justice in matters pending before
the court as untenable, Justice Hart
well concluded, You see the concIu-.
sion we have come TO, that the motion
must be denied, and it is denied.
DIA7F THAT AHinilT