The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1905-04-13

CO.. LOSES
Claims on Work for
One Month Rejected.
The Courts.

Justice Hartwell, with whom sat
Judges De Bolt and Lindsay as sub
stitutes. rendered the unanimous opin-
ion of the Supreme Court in the man.
damus suit of Hawaiian Dredging co.
against c. S. Holloway, Superintend-
ent of Public Works. Judge Robin
sons decree appealed from, which dis
missed the writ, is sustained
Petitioner had two contracts for
dredging in Honolulu harbor, one be-
ing for section 1 and the other for
section g. Both were to be completed
completed the Superintendent of Pub
lie Works requested the contractor to
dredge a portion of slip No between
the Hackfeld and Railway wharves,
which lay in the area of section ), but
not as part of the second contract.
About $4,000 remaining from the loan
fund appropriation was available for
this particular work.
After doing this extra work the COM
pany went on dredging in section 3
with a view to saving its second con-
tract. although, as the courts have
u.
understood that only the contract for
section 1 should be performed until
there should be funds available for the
other section and the respondent (Su-
perintendenD should so notify the pc
titioner'' (the dredging company.
The superintendent notified the COM
pany on November 30, 1904, that its
action in continuing work was entire
ly at its own risk. Nevertheless the
company went ahead and on Decem-
Der 1 asked for a survey and estimate,
under the contract for section 3, for
the month of November. which the Su-
perintendent declined to give. When
the company sent in its bill for the
extra dredging mentioned as having
been requested-being for $274S.16-the
Assistant superintendent of Public
Works certified to it that the services
had been faithfully performed. The
bill was for dredging section as per
contract, 1888 cubic yards, rate %
cents. This voucher was refused by
the Auditor because the contract al
lowed only so per cent TO be paid for
the work of each month and that the
balance should be reserved until the
contract was completed. Accordingly
the word final was required by the
Auditor to be inserted in the bill be-
fore approving it. The Hawaiian
Dredging Co. declined to accept this
form of voucher, considering that it
would mean the loss of the whole con-
tract.
1t is decided in effect by the courts
that the company had no reason for
assuming that the work in dredging
slip No. L was d beginning of the con-
tract for section 8, and that the Su-
perintendent of Public Works could
not be bound to carry out a contract
for which funds had not been pro-
vided.
Kinney, McCIanahan & Cooper and
S H. Derby represented the petitioner,
and j. w. Cathcart the respondent.
COURT ITEMS
NJ. G. Silva, selling liquor without
a license, is on trial before Judge De
Bolt
In the action to quiet title of r.
Maka VS.. Fannie Strauch, trustee for
Wilhelmina Strauch and Mele Maikai
the plaintiff has served notice on the
defendants to admit facts and docu-
ments.
Henry Holmes has filed his bond in
$1,000, with J. NJ. Dowsett surety, as
administrator with the will annexed
of Cresswell Keane Charles Rookie, de-
ceased.
Edward Vivian Richardson and his
sureties answer the suit of Superin-
tendent Holloway on his bond, given
as clerk of Honolulu Water Works,
with a general denial and reliance on
the defense of infancy of Richardson.