The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1908-03-21

Injunction suit of the Territory, by
Charles r. Hemenway, Attorney Gen
eral. decided against the company A
citation by Chief Justice Hartwell has
issued to the Territory Of Hawaii.
commanding it to appear before the
Supreme Court of the United States at
Washington within sixty days ito
show cause, if any there be, why the
Judgment in said appeal mentioned
should not be corrected, and why
speedy justice should not be done to
the parties in that behalf"
There are nineteen assignments Of
errors in the appeal.
1. There is error in affirming the
decree and permanent restraining or
der of Judge De Bolt to prevent the
company from operating upon Liliha
street in Honolulu cars less in number
than now operated and maintained.
2. There is error in holding that the
Circuit Court had jurisdiction and in
holding that the allegations of the bill
set forth any ground of complaint
against the defendant or for relief by
injunction or otherwise.
g. There is error in holding that
damus is not the only remedy to en-
force statutory obligation Of the
character alleged.
f. There is error in holding that
Section Z of the Act of the Republic
of Hawaii of July 7, 1898, imposes any
clear duty to run the cars at any par
ticu1ar time such as could be enforced
either by injunction or mandamus.
5. Theirs is error in holding that the
franchise does not impose the discre-
ton as to the times of running the
cars upon the corporation and in hold
ing that a court of equity has any
power to control that discretion.
6. There is error in holding that
the reserved power of control Of the
discretion is not permit
ted by said Act, particularly by Sec
ton 9, TO the Governor or the Super
intendent of Public Works with the
of the Governor.
Z. It is error to overrule the con-
tention of the appellant that, if such
reserved power is not reserved to the
Governor or the Superintendent Of
Public Works. it is reserved to the con-
dic0rnffnFS Of hn 10
only and the court has no power to
exercise such control.
s. There is error in holding that
public convenience required the main
tenance of the service on Liliha street
set out in the decree and in finding
that the proposed service was insult
dcient for public convenience.
8. There is error in overruling the
defendants contention that public con-
venience means the convenience of the
public under all the circumstances,
such facilities as the traffic will war
rant as determined by the revenue de-
rived therefrom, and that courts will
not usurp a legislative function and
require particular service shown to
be improbable to the company.
10. There is error in holding that
an injunction could be maintained in
this case, in view of the evidence show
ing that no permission had been given
by the superintendent of Public Works
to change the switches so that the
proposed schedule could be carried out
H. There is error in denying the
contention of the defendant that the
of quo warranto provided by
Sec. 36 of the Act (Sec. $40 r. Id
was an exclusive remedy and that the
Attorney General had no authority to
institute this proceeding in the name
Of the Territory.
II. There is error in holding that
decisions upon the exercise of judicial
power concerning railroads, which re-
fer to corporations authorized but not
required by statutes to construct and
maintain railroads, are not in point.
Is. There is error in denying the
that a bill in chancery
would not lie to enforce specific per-
torrance of duties requiring contin-
uous personal labor and care, and that
an injunction does not lie to enforce a
contract requiring continuous acts:
and in holding that the injunction in
this case merely precludes the viola
ton of an obligation imposed by the
defendants charter.
IA. There is error in denying that
1t does not appear that irreparable in
Jury would result, on the ground that
it is enough that the proposed act
would be a violation of the statutory
of the defendant.
10. There is error in holding that
a grant to the company of the power
to determine how many cars are re-
CURED would naturally and properly
be expressed or clearly implied, and
that matter so important to the pub-
lie is subject to judicial injury and
determination unless, as is not the case
here, shown in clear language to be
entrusted to the discretion of the cor
poration.
Is. There is error in holding that
4 definite and clear standard of public
has been established, with
regard to Liliha street, by the COM
pany in it's maintenance of a ten min
ute schedule upon that street for about
SIX years and that, while it Nigh. be
1lf1cult to say in advance what will
be required, there is nothing uncertain
the natural inconvenience
Of the reduction Of the Liliha street
service or the public convenience re-