The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1907-10-18


sweeping opinion decided against tn,
Honolulu Rapid Transit & Land Com
| pany in the proceeding brought by
the Liliha street people to prevent {
change from the present ten-minut,
| schedule on that line.
Indeed, Judge De Bolt goes so fa1
| as to say that in his opinion public
convenience "clearly requires that al
lines be operated upon uniform
schedule and intimates very strongly
that by mandamus proceedings the
street car company could be compell-
ell to run all its lines on a ten-min-
ute schedule.
The decision is considered by many
as extremely radical. It is announced
by representatives of the company that
an appeal to the Supreme Court will be
taken.
The decision in its entirely with the
exception of some of the references
to citations is here given:
By Act SO, Laws of 1898, Or. L. Oh.
66), respondent was granted the right
to construct, maintain and operate a
railway along and upon certain streets,
roads and places in the district of Ho-
nolulu.
This franchise carries with it wall
liable and profitable rights and priviI
eyes to be utilized and enjoyed by the
respondent. And, in consideration of
this franchise and the right to exer-
else and enjoy the prerogatives Incl
dent thereto, the respondent, among
other duties imposed upon and ASSUME
ed by it, is the chief and essential
duty, namely: that respondent shall
at all times maintain a sufficient num-
Der of cars to be used upon said rail-
way for the carriage of passengers as
public convenience may require Or.
L. Sec. SAD.
Among the several lines of said rail-
way now in operation, is the 'Liliha-
Waialae" line, extending from Wyi.:e
street along Liliha, King, Hotel Ala
pal, Beretania, Alexander and King
streets to The Waialae road, and thence
along the Waialae road to 18th avenue
in Kaimuki. y
From the inception of the operation
of its railway, about 1901, respondent
has continuously operated its cars on
Liliha street on a ten-minute schedule.
During this time the population ada
cent to and the passenger traffic Of
the respondent on Liliha street has
grown. And, as shown by the uncon-
tradicted evidence herein, the public
requires that this ten-min-
ute schedule on Liliha street be MAIN
tanned.
1t also appears that the operation
Of the railway, as a whole, is profit
able. But respondent contends that
the Liliha street portion is operated
at loss. I cannot say from the evil |
1ence that such is or is not the case. |
However, as I view the matter, it is |
for the purposes of this |
case to determine whether this particu- |
ar portion of the line is profitable or
not so long as it is admitted that the |
as a whole is profitable.
Notwithstanding the foregoing facts. |
t appears that the respondent proposes
% and will, unless restrained by in
JUNCTION, proceed to modify the sched-
ale on Liliha street so that the ears
'unning thereon, between 8 a. m. and
p. m. and between p. m. and mid
hight, will be operated on a twenty
minute schedule: the ten-minute sched-
lie to be maintained only from s. a. m.
% a. m. and from p. m. to s p. m.
Hence, on September Z, 1907, the At
orney General, on behalf of the Terri
DRY, filed herein a bill in equity
against the respondent, praying that
N injunction issue restraining respond
mt from operating its cars on that
portion of the ''Liliha- Waialae" line
WyIlie and River streets at
intervals of more than ten minutes be-
ween cars.
The respondent answered, denying
he power and jurisdiction of the court,
nd alleging that the bill set forth no
round of complaint: also, that it is
ot shown that the Territory has au-
horized this suit. or is proper party,
nd also contending that mandamus
nd not injunction is the proper rem
dy.
The question thus presented for con-