The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1906-12-11
IAUkEA NOW
It FOR SURE
Supreme Court Gives
Decision in His
Favor.


''The views of the court upon this
case have not been changed. The opin-
ion will be filed tomorrow morning at
10 o'clock
This announcement by Chief Justice
Frear from the bench late yesterday
afternoon confirms the election of Cur
lis P. Iaukea as County Sheriff of
Oahu. 1t was made after a reargu-
ment. at the instance of Arthur M.
the Supreme Court on Saturday to the
effect that a regular vote for Sheriff
upon a ballot containing too many
votes for Supervisors should be
counted.
The ruling in question, as was re-
ported in the Sunday Advertiser. re-
suited in a count of such ballots which,
with the previous count, gave Iaukea
a majority OF 80 over Brown. Yester-
day morning the Chief Justice, in open
court. stated that, without the count of
the series of ballots last ruled on, the
candidates came out even. Iaukea,
having thus gained one, has majority
of 40
Justice Hartwell read the majority
opinion of the court at the morning
session yesterday after Geo. D. Gear
nt
his request for reargument. Mr.. Gear
wanted until Wednesday or Thursday
to prepare his law points, but the
court set o'clock yesterday afternoon
for the hearing The opinion of Justice
Hartweli, concurred in by the Chief
Justice went to the construction TO-
gether of the general election law ana
the election clauses of the County Act
IT was held that the provision as to a
surplus OF votes on legislative ballots
was not applicable to county election
ballots because in the former case
there were separate ballots for Sena-
TORS and Representatives, and, except
nv inference, the County Act did not
reuuire that the various county oH1cers
should be voted for on one ballot. Each
set of officers ought to be considered
as making up a distinct ballot. They
mad been put on one paper evidently
for convenience. The marking of four
votes. for Supervisors was considered
as not being a means of ident1fcatioh'
chief Justice Frear, in orally con-
-errring. said it would be unfair TO
make a ruling that votes for four IN
stead of three Supervisors, the number
to be elected, constituted distinguish
ing marx. In this case it would de-
nriye 274 voters of their right of choice
of Sheriff.
',Justicf Wilder uttered a dissenting
opinion. orally, from the majority OIL
the court. He held there was no au-
tboritv for either the court or the in
spectors to reject part of ballot. Inc
inspectors were directed by law to en-
dorse rejected ballot as such merely
hut under the ruling of the court they
wouId have to endorse it with the spe-
Wilder invoked the courts ruhng III
fhe Fernandez case and held that the
general law did apply to the county
election.
Mr.. Gear. on final argument quoteu
authorities at length to support ms
contention that judicial decision con-
strung a statute becomes part there
af as much as if il We're written IN +,
the text Of the statute, . He stated the
proposition that an office was property
as much as We're the proceeds or idhu' !
Even a new constitution could not ap-
,ogate contracts. and the candidates
ls5 gone i,1-o this election under the
Implied contract OF the courts FORMER
ruling. Mr. Gear argued that the
county election ballots had properly
corresponded to the requirements OF the J
law. and that the general electloh
statutes did apply to the county eiec
ton. both as to the kind of ballot ana
the rules governing the leSalty Oh
votes
Mr.. Kinney. for the respondent. nav
ing covered his ground Thoroughly
when he orened the crucial question:
last Thursday. took but snort time
in replying TO opposite counsel When
he concluded the Chief Justice made
the decisive announcement above ,
quoted. J
1t is reported that Arthur NJ Brown
will consult with his legal advisers
about an appeal to Washington or the
taking of some other step to prevent
his opponent. Iaukea. from assuming