The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1907-01-12

Isomc special injury not in common with
Others, ANA that it Is incumbent upon
him TO allcge this special injury to him
SELF as being different from that suf-
fored by the community al large.
The general rule governing the iuris-
diction i'm equity against public officers
is that equity win interpose i'm behalf
Of individuals to restrain an Illegal and
unauthorized acts by them under color
and claim of official authority which
tend to impair public rights"
Spelling, Injunction etc, Secs 6O9-
GA.
Mechem on public officers, at Sec. $50,
after some discussion as to the right Of
a citizen or taxpayer to maintain suits
Of this character, and also as to the
duty of the Attorney General in such
suits in some states, says "But by the
great preponderance of authority, it is
settled that any single taxpayer, or any
number of them, may intervene to pre-
vent by injunction an unlawful levy,
appropriation or expenditure by which
the burden Of the taxpayer as such
would be unjustly and illegally in
creased and that a special or peculiar
In Castle VS.. Kapena, Haw. q, Chief
Justice Judd said: Il am of the opinion
that the petitioners, as citizens and tax
payers, have the right to sue out this
writ. They have, as taxpayers, the
fright to endeavor to prevent a public Of
ficer from doing what is an injury to
the public good. There are authorities
on both sides of the question, but the
current seems to be in favor Of the
right, and the case of Champion VS.
Zabriske, 101 L. S. 6O9."
Also, in Lucas VS.. Amer. Haw. e. &
c. Co. 16 Haw. sc, the court say: "The
right of taXpayed to bring suit to
restrain a public officer from doing an
illegal act has been settled in this
jurisdiction since the case of Castle ct
al. VS.. Kapena, Haw. 27 QSS9). If
the question could be considered an
open one we should follow the rule laid
down in Champion V. Zabriskie, 1O1 u
5. Sol, and in R. P. r. Co. V. Hall, 81 u
S. 949, cited in Castle v.Kapena. It is
not necessary that the plaintiff should
show actual damage to himself and
to all others similarly situated, as is
contended by the Assistant Attorney
General"
Again, in Castle V. Sec. of Ter. 16
Haw no, wherein the defendant con-
tended that equity has no Jurisdiction
to grant an injunction against him at
the suit of a taxpayer or of a bondhold-
er. whose bonds are not shown to be in
danger of being defaulted; the court,
after holding that a taxpayer could
maintain the suit, say: "State decisions
for nd against the exercise of jurisdic-
ton such as claimed by the plaintiff
are interesting and of value to the
student of law but as above stated,
the question has been decided by this
court in favor of the exercise"
From an examination of the cases
cited it clearly appears that the Su-
preme Court Of these islands, under the
Monarchy, Republic and Territorial
government, have not in a single in
stance failed to recognize and uphold
the right of the taxpayer to institute
and maintain suits of this character.
And the reason, as well as the utility
of this rule, in this Jurisdiction becomes
apparent when we stop to consider that
the law makes it the duty of the At
torney General to appear in defense
Continued on Page seven).