The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1908-01-24

K. Co., V. Horton ct al, 207 Z. s 49,,
as reported in advance sheets. The
Supreme Court Of South Carolina had
granted a mandamus to compel the
railroad company to stop two of its
through trains from Jersey City to
Tampa at a station called Latta, pur-
suant to an order of the railroad COM
missioners. Latta had a population of
455, having several local trains for sta
tons along the road and one through
Pullman train which stopped there.
The only objection to the trains was
their want of speed. The court thought
that the company had furnished such
reasonable accommodations to the peo-
pie at Latta as 1t could fairly and
properly be called upon to give.
1t is urged that "a bill in chancery
would not lie to enforce the specific
tinuous personal labor and care" (Mc-
Cam V. South Nashville R. r. Co.,
Tenn. Oh. 773), and that an injunction
does net lie to enforce contract re-
quiring continuous acts. The injunc-
ton in this case merely precludes the
violation of an obligation imposed by
the defendants charter.
AS to the defendants claim that it
does not appear that irreparable in
jury would result. it is enough that
the proposed act would be a violation
of the statutory obligation of the de-
PENDANT. Attorney General V. R. R.
Companies, So Wis. 425.
We do not sustain the defendants
contention that the suit is premature
pending the result of it's application
to the Superintendent of Public Works
for permission to change its switches
to conform to the proposed 1920 min
ute service. The statute, Sec. S43, R.
l., provides that the company shall
make reasonable and Just regulations,
with the consent and approval of the
Governor, regarding the maintenance
and operation of said railway on and
through said Streets" and failing to
do so "the Superintendent of Public
Works, with the approval of the Gov
ernor, may make them"
This does not appear to US to be a
grant to the association or to the ex-
ecutive of discretionary power to de-
bCl hiiiiC iiOW SdiS SIhii OC oh
and at what intervals. A separate sec
ton, SAL. provides that the company
shall at all times maintain sufh-
cient number of cars" A grant
either to the company or to the execu-
tive Of such an important power as to
determine how many cars are required
for this purpose would naturally and
properly be expressed or clearly i'm
piled. It's exercise would not call for
any public hearing, but ordinarily would
be ex parte on the company's showing.
A matter so important to the public is
subject to judicial inquiry and de-
termination unless. as is not the case
here, shown in clear language to be
entrusted to executive discretion or to
the discretion of the corporation.
Many cases are cited by the defend
ant holding that ''mandamus to COM
pei a railroad to do a particular act
can be issued only when by statute
there is a specific legal duty on it's
part to do that act" Northern Pa
cific r. r. Co. V Dustin, 142 U. S.
492; People " Brooklyn Heights Ry.
Co, 172 N. Y. 80; Nashville Ry. V.
State, 155 Ala. 401 State V. Patterson,
etc, Ry. Co, AZ N. j. sos; San An
tonic Street Ry. " State, 80 Tex $40;
State V. Kansas City Ry. Co., rs So.
127 Qa); Florida Central Ry. Co. V.
State, IS So. 103 CFla); Raymond V.
County of Stearns, IS Mimi 40.
Attorney General V. Salem. 103 Mass.
1873, was an information in the nature
+l,at
a statute for supplying the city of
Salem with water the defendant had
works at the expense of
81 100000 or more and issued scrip or
bonds to that amount. the statute
providing that the city council should
establish water rates to provide for
payment of interest and not less than
one per cent. annually on the princi-
pal of the loan. and that the net in
come should be set apart as sinking
fund for its payment; further alleging
that the city, disregarding these pro-
had established nominal water
rates, leaving property and poll taxes
to pay the interest, ETC., and praying
that it be made to answer by what
it was acting thus and be
enjoined from supplying water at NOM
inal rates and taxing inhabitants to
pay the operating expenses and the
loan. The court held that this was
not the appropriate remedy to enforce
performance of duties imposed by law
or to restrain improper use of a fran
chise which does not work a for
FIXTURE declining to decide whether /
the Attorney General could bring a |
bill in equity to redress any public |
wrong. but holding thai this was not
a public wrong. Attorney General V.
Tudor Ice Co.. 104 Mass. 239, was an
in equity by the Attorney |
General to restrain the defendant from
on any other than it's ice
business. The court held that as the
defendant was a private trading cor
poration, and as public rights were |
not endangered, injunction did not
lie, saying that the only cases in which |
t had sustained informations in equity |
by the Attorney General were those Of
public nuisance affecting the public
safety or convenience and requiring
immediate judicial interposition, like
Instructions of highways or naviga-
Die waters and trusts for charitable
purposes where a breach of the trust
Gould not be effectively redressed ex-
,ept by suit in behalf of the public.