The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1907-01-24
OV0rruIed
De Bolt In
Lanai Case
SUPREME COURT HELD THAT
DRAWING INTERLOCUTORY.

The Supreme Court overruled Judge
De Bolts recent order Withdrawing the
interlocutory decree and order Of ap-
peal from that decree i'm the Lanai
land injunction case. That is the Su-
preme Court did nos, in exactly so
many words, overrule the judges re-
cent order, but it ignored that order,
holding that the circuit judge had no
right to make such order for the mat
ter had passed from his jurisdiction.
In consequence of this ruling by the
court this morning, the argument on
the appeal from Judge De Bolts opin-
ion overruling the defendants demur-
rer will come up before the Supreme
Court tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock
This morning the Supreme Court
heard proceedings in the matter Of a
motion by Judge Gear in behalf Of L..
L. McCandless, to dismiss the appeal
of the government. Judge Gear, dur
ing the course of his address to the
court, read the "roast" made by Judge
De Bolt relative to the Attorney Cen
eral, in making the order Withdrawing
the interlocutory decree and order Of
appeal The inquiry from Gear as to
whether this part Of the matter should
be read caused evident amusement to
the court.
f. w. Milverton Of the Attorney Cen
erals department read the answer Of
the Attorney General to the motion,
in which it was stated that the order
made by Judge De Bolt had been done
at the written application of L. L. Nc
Candless, the appellee in the case.
Gear made quite an extended argu-
ment in which it was contended that
! the court had the right to withdraw
such order; that the method adopted
by the Attorney General in securing
such decree had been improper and OPP
posed to the rules of the court, further
more that no notice of intention to take
such decree had been served on him.
Gear. and that the Attorney General
representing the losing side, had pre-
pared the decree that the other side
should have prepared; furthermore
that the decree as prepared did not
conform to the opinion of the lower
court in the matter.
The Supreme Court denied the mo-
ton. It held that the lower court had
lost its jurisdiction after the appeal
had been taken to the higher court
and it had no further control over it
The court further held that while nc
doubt it would have been better prac
tice to have given notice, still suct
course was not necessary absolutely
as the court was not bound to give no.
tice to either side when it signed a de-
cree, any more than when it signed {
decision Relative to the nonconform'
ity of the decree to the opinion of the
lower court, it was held that that was
a nom essential point in the present in
stance.
Justice Hartw ell gave an interesting
discussing upon proper methods o
practice in the courts, referring to som,
decisions respecting them. The jus
tice pointed out that the question o
notifying opposing counsel in such in
stances was frequently one of discre
ton; there might also be instances, al
though the justice did not mean to i'm
ply that the present case was one
when ex parSe injunction matters Nigh
cause trouble and harm.
Arguments on the appeal will com
up tomorrow morning at 10 O'clock be
fore the Supreme Court