The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1907-02-14
SUPREME COURT
IN ANGRY MOOD
The Chief Justice Reprimands
Attorney General for
Lanai Deal.

No argument was allowed by the Su-
preme Court yesterday on the obiec-
tions filed by the Attorney General to
the motion of the petitioner for a de-
cree in the injunction suit of L. L. Nc
Candless against George r. Carter,
Governor and James w. Pratt. Com
missioner of Public Lands.
When Attorney General E. c. Peters
had made preliminary statement in
which he said that the only objection
at that time to a decree was that the
motion therefor predicated an appeal to
the United States Supreme Court and
that an appeal in the case did not lie,
there was some discussion on the ques-
ton of time and manner of appeal
which involved the further question OF
an injunction pending an appeal.
Chief Justice Frear at this stage stat
ed that the Attorney General would
have no right to be heard on the ques-
ton of extending the injunction for the
purposes of an appeal, and went on
to reprimand the Attorney General for
having advised the executive to pro-
ceed with the Lanai land exchange
sought to be enjoined before the court
had made any decree based on its opin-
ion that the injunction should be dis
solved. It was intimated somewhat
plainly by the Chief Justice that the
Attorney General might be held liable
for contempt of court.
Mr.. Peters took his medicine in sill
ence, not asking for the privilege of
making defense to the implication OF
contempt.
After the deliyerance by the Chief
Justice the court heard argument on
the question of whether or not the in
junction should be continued in the de-
cree.
Justice Hartwell asked Mr.. Robert
son, on the latter's offer to produce au-
thorities: How does the keeping alive
of an injunction which everybody
knows is of no use at all, for the pur-
pose of preventing that which is the
object of the suit, affect your status
on appeal?'
Mr.. Robertson replied that their con-
tention was that the plaintiff was en-
titled TO have the question at law adju-
dictated Notwithstanding any act that
would tend to render the injunction
futile. They contended further that
the transfer the Attorney General re-
ported as having been made was prac-
tically null In other words. the in
junction issued by Judge De Bolt was
not dissolved ipso facto by the opinion
of the Supreme Court. Since this court
was no longer absolute and final as
formerly, its decisions being now re-
viewabIe by the Supreme Court of the
United states, the status was on diff
ferent basis.
Chief Justice Frear repeated the
opinion he had expressed in his previ-
Gus remarks, Justice Hartwell co1ncld-
ing. that there could be no reason FOR
an Injunction of an act that had al
ready been executed. The court sug-
gested that there were other remedies.
one was that of a supplementary Dill
stating that the deal had already been
made. Another, that an action Tor
reconveyance of the property might De
brought.
Finally, the Chief Justice stated that
the matter would be taken under con-
sideration and declared the court ad-
journed until 10 a. m. Friday
EARLY PROCEEDINGS.
G. D. Gear appeared with A e. M.
Robertson, the latter for the hrst Tune,
for the plaintiff, and Attorney General
F.. c. Peters and Deputy Attorney Gen.
eral F. w. Milverton for the deIeno-
ants.
Mr.. Milverton opened the proceedings
by stating that they had filed oDJectlohs
to the motion by Judge Gear for entry
of decree.
Chief Justice Frear said the matter
had not come up yet and asked Judge
Gear if he had a motion to present.
Judge Gear said yes and it would
be presented by Mr.. Robertson
The motion and form Of decree were
read, interspersed by some discussion
also, by request of Justice HartWeii'
the Injunction issued by Judge De Bolt
and, on the question of whether or
not Governor Carriers name snoulu
further appear in the pleadings, since
the circuit Judge had dismissed the Dill
as to him, the Chief Justice said they
could easily make change IN that re.
gard. It would be a mere matter OF
form.
Then the Attorney General interviewed
with his statement of the respondent
position, which brought fire down from
the bench.
REMARKS OF MR.. PETERS.
The Attorney General said:
If the court please, prior to reaa-
ing the objection to the decree maue
bx the respondent Pratt, would nhe
to say that as far as the form OF ene
decree is concerned we have no op1ec-
lions further than contained in the
written objection filed with the court
but I would say in that regard, Ii the
court please. that upon the rendition Oh
the decision by this court, L tnlnk Oh
the 1st of February. / advised the re-
snondent Pratt that the exchange couio
be made, and the exchange has oeeh
made and was made on the aIlernoon
If the LIST of February. Tnat ADVICE
vas given upon the consideration Oh tue
law and facts of the case. NneIhef
,r not the decree can be signed IN les
nresent form we raise no op1ectioh,
that is, as far as any Objection tndt
he exchange has been made, as stat
al to the court we have no oDJectloh
o make. and waive that right TO MAKE
hat objection. The only objection that
we make at the present time. II the
,,,,r+ pIaasp is an the ground that the