The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1906-10-16
APPELLATE
COURT WORK

BY chief Justice Frear the Supreme
Court has rendered an opinion over
ruling the defendants exceptions II
each OF two cases brought by James l.
Holt. Tax Assessor and Collector
against Wong Kwai and John +. col
burn respectively. NJ. +. Prosser, Dep
uty Attorney General, appeared fol
plaintiff and c. w. Ashford for de
PENDANTS.
"A single cause of action" the syl-
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
1901 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, a similar plea in writing was
overruled. Judgments were entered for
plaintiff for s1990.50 in the first, and
$56s.45 in the second case. In the Col
burn case the first action was for the
income taxes for 1901 and 1902, and the
judgments were for $140.1S and $992.21
respectively, the other facts being sim
10 tn In, hn Il co
The court gives its reasons as follows
for it's decision:
There can be no doubt of the rule
of law relied on in support of the pleas
d. 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 ac-
count, though covering many different
items incurred at different dates would
ordinarily, but not always, be consid-
cred as constituting single cause Of
action within the application of this
rule. 1t 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
n of taxes. assessed under different stat
o. a,s,ara,,, ,,ou;oas 90 49, T. t.
~. .,,ff,a;a,. 49, ~. ,,,ai,t,se a
dof.,,aa,t ha,r O.. ha ~ san T.,
,,ots - ~ .tt -, ~ IT,
ho,,, 49,, ;,,roa T., 80 aat,on RI
oa,sos os ,,,;on 40 s,st,,,ot o,a ,ha,
q, ~ on,,o;oI ,,,;nt :,
-x
HHAniSu@ Ed u EI'DAi'
Yesterday morning the supreme Court
denied sthe motion or Deputy Attorney
General MilVerton, for the Territory,
to admit the deposition OF II. Clay
Kellogg In the water right controversy
OF Paiolo Land u Improvement Com
pany, Ltd, VS.. Territory OF HAWAII,
Kaane kaumaka and others. Castle q
wilmington represented the plaintiff.
When the court issued the commission
to some one IN Callfornla TO take the
deposition or Mr.. Kellogg, as an expert
VINO mad visited the location or the
water in question, the question Of the
admissibility OF his testimony was still
pending. The ruling Just made shuts
~ Jul
j. K. Farley, Assessor, VS.. H. M. 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 81 Lewis
Tor the taxpayer.
In the afternoon the famous case OF
a battle royal for possession of school
premises IN mona: ha"ah, was argued
7, withineton both arened for the
nI.;ntiff n U Raker ard NJ n pros-
ser Denuty Attorney Cenera, for A
M Brown and others defandants II
was on nlaintIffs anneaI from Judge
Mattbewmap,s GRANTING of motiop IN
After fipdina tha ,ot,I amoun+ Of da,,-
ages tho inv in tic yerdict nroooodad
10 it.nizo a. oeo,n.t tho ra.naoti,,a a.
ferdonts-tb. Ill haina doh;tod 70
"> 100 '''A "