The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1906-10-16
APPELLATE
COURT WORK
important Tax Decision
The Famous K0na
School Case.

Court has rendered an opinion over
ruling the defendants exceptions in
each of two cases brought by James L.
Holt. Tax Assessor and Collector,
against Wong Kwai and John F. Col
burn respectively. M. f. Prosser, Dep
Iuty Attorney General. appeared for
plaintiff, and c. w. Ashford for de-
PENDANTS.
"a single cause of action the syl-I
labus declares. cannot be split for the
purpose of bringing separate actions on
the different parts, but income and
property taxes, though for the same
year, are distinct causes of action and
Judgment, for one does not bar an &C
ton for the other"
In the Wong Kwai case the collec-
tor brought an action for the income
tax assessed against the defendant in
l1901 and shortly afterward an action
for the property taxes assessed in 1901
and 1902. After judgment was render
ed in the first action a plea in bar was
made orally to the second one. on the
theory that there was but one cause
of action, which could not be split ex-
cept with the result of waving what
was not included in the first action.
The plea was overruled, and on appeal
of both cases to the Circuit Court, jury
, waived similar plea in writing was
Ioverruled. Judgments were entered for
plaintiff for $1990.5O in the first, and
Ty, CO1-
burn case the first action was for the
income taxes for 1901 and 1902, and the
judgments were for s140.18 and 1892. Il
respectively, the other facts being sim
liar to those in the Wong Kwai case.
The court gives it's reasons as follows
for it's decision:
There can be no doubt of the rule
of law relied on in support of the pleas
in bar. to the effect that, in order to
avoid vexatious and oppressive litiga-
, ton, a single cause of action cannot
be split for the purpose of bringing
, separate actions upon the different
parts; and in Levers & Cooke VS.. Red
house, IA Haw. 300, and Phillips VS..
Lun Chong, Id. 295, this court went SO
far as to hold that running book &C
; count, though covering many different
} items incurred at different dates would
; ordinarily, but not always, be consid-
} cred as constituting a single cause of
action within the application of this
rule. It is clear, however, that income
taxes and property taxes, though for
the same year. constitute distinct
causes of action and may be sued for
separately. There is no connection be
tween them. They are distinct kinds
of taxes. assessed under different stat
utes at different times in the year and
for different periods of time. 1t is
not sufficient that the plaintiff and
: defendant happen to be the same in
, both actions, or that both causes might
have been joined in one action. The
, causes of action are distinct and that
, is the crucial point
HEARINGS YESTERDAY.
Yesterday morning the Supreme Court
denied the motion of Deputy Attorney
General Milverton, for the Territory,
to admit the deposition of H. Clay
Kellogg in the water right controversy
of PaIolo Land & Improvement Com
pany, Ltd, VS.. Territory of Hawaii.
Kaane Kaumaka and others. Castle &
Wilmington represented the plaintiff.
When the court issued the commission
to some one in California to take the
) deposition of Mr.. Kellogg, as an expert
= who had visited the location of the
water in question. the question of the
admissibiity of his testimony was still
pending. The ruling just made shuts
it out.
J. K. Farley, Assessor, VS.. H. NJ. Won
Holt, an appeal from the Tax Appeal
Court of Kauai, was argued and sub
mitted. Deputy Attorney General Mil
verton for the Assessor, Smith & Lewis
for the taxpayer.
| In the afternoon the famous case Of
a. battle royal for possession of school
premises in Kona. Hawaii, was argued
and submitted. c. w Ashford and D.
L. Wilmington both argued for the
plaintiff. .. K. Baker, and NJ. F. Pros
ser, Deputy Attorney General, for A.
NJ. Brown and others, defendants. 1t
was on plaintiffs appeal from Judge
Matthewman's granting of motion to
set aside a verdict of $4,000 for plaintiff
After finding the total amount of dam
ages the jury in its verdict proceeded
to itemize it against the respective de-
fendants-the bulk being debited to
High Sheriff Brown, then so much to
Sheriff L. A. Andrews, the late Surer-l
Iintendent of Education A. T. Atkinson
and so on down to a policeman, the
cause of damages being the forcible
eviction of the Baker family from the
premises.
| bepuIy attorney General MlIVertOn
and Carl S. Smith. for the Respective
parties, agreed in open court to sub
NIT on briefs the murder case of Ter
ritory VS.. Keizo, exceptions from the
HiIo Circuit Court
E. n. Holmes VS.. J. c.. Serrao was
submitted on briefs by Carl S. Smith
for plaintiff and W. S. Wise and r. w.
Breckons for defendant, the latter hay
ing taken exceptions from Hilo
TODAY'S PROGRAM.
Today the court has set down for
hearing the Pa1olo water case, the cross
annaaIS in IIor,al..1.. Ioa..;-l r,-a---..