The Hawaiian gazette., 1908-03-24
L|L|HA STREET
To WASHINGTON

Ltd. has fled an appeal TO the SUI
prems Court OF the United States fro-a
the supreme Court OF Hawaii in the
Injunction suit OF the Territory. by
Charles R Hsmsnway. Attorney GEN
eral decided against the company \
citation by Chief Justice Hartwen has
Issued 20 the Territory OF Hawaii.
commanding il 70 appear before the
Supreme Court Of the United States ar
Washington within sixty days ito
show cause, II 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
! There IS error in affirming the
decree and permanent restraining OK
der OF Judge De Bolt 70 prevent tse
company from operating upon Lfliha
street in Honolulu cars less IN number
than now operated and maintained
. There is error in holding that the
Circuit Court had Jurisdiction and in
holding that the allegations u the bill
set forth any ground OF complaint
against the defendant or for relief by
Injunction or otherwise
) There is error in holding that
equity has jurisdiction and that man
danus is not the only remedy 70 en-
force q statutory obligation OF the
character alleged
T. There is error In holding that
Section : OF the Act OF the Republic
OF Hawaii OF July !. 1885. imposes any
clear duty TO run the cars AT any par
ticuIar time such as could be enforced
either by Injunction or uandamus-
5 There IS error in holding that the
franchise does not impose the discre-
ton as 20 the times OF running the
cars upon the corporation and in hold
ing that q court OF equity has any
power 20 control that discretion
6. There IS error IN holding that
the reserved power OF control OF the
corporations discretion is not permit
ted by said Act. particularly by Sec
ton g. 70 the Governor or the Super
inteudent Of Public Works with the
approval OF the Governor.
:. II IS error 10 overrule the con-
tention Of the appellant that. Il such
reserved power is not reserved 70 the
Governor or the Superintendent Of
Public WORKS, il is reserved 20 the con-
troll and discretion OF the Legislature
only and the court has no power 10
exercise such control
5. There is error in holding that
public convenience required the main
tenance OF the service on Iiliha street
set out in the decree and in finding
that the proposed service was insult
fcient for public convenience
g There is error in oyerruliug the
DEFENDANTS contention that public con-
venience means the convenience OF the
public under all the circumstances,
such facilities as the traffic viii war
rant q. determined by the revenue de-
not usUrp g legislative function and
require q particular service shown 10
be improbable 70 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
10 change the switches 50 that the
pSOpOsed schedule could be carried out.
Il There Is error in denying the
contention OF the defendant that the
remedy OF quo warranto provided by
Sec IS OF the Act (Sec. SO R. Ii
was an exclusive remedy and that the
General had no authority TO
institute this proceeding in the name
OF the Territory.
p There is error in holding that
decisions upon the exercise Of judicial
power concerning railroads, which re-
fer to corporations authorized but not
by statutes TO construct and
maintain railroads. are not in point.
f3 There is error in denying the
contention that g bill in chancery
would not lie 10 enforce specific per
Torrance OF duties requiring contfn-
nous personal labor and care, and that
an injunction does not lie 70 enforce a
contract requiring continuous acts;
and in holding that the injunction in
this case merely precfudes the viola
ton OF an obligation imposed by. the
charter.
Il There IS error in denying that
Il does not appear that irreparable in
Jury would result. on the ground that
II Is enough that the proposed act
would be q violation Of the statutory
OF the defendant.
Is There Is error in holding that
: grant 70 the company Of the power
70 determine how many cars are re-
luired would naturally and properly
Dc expressed or clearly implied. and
hat a matter sofmportant TO the pub /
&c IS subject to judicial injury and
unless. as is not the case
lere, shown in clear language TO be i
.ntrusted to the discretion OF the cor
l0ratiOn-
IS, There is error IN Eplding that
. definite and clear standard OF public
Convenience has been established, with
egard 10 LfIiha street. by the COM
any IN its maintenance OF q ten min
ne schedule upon that street for about
* years and that, while il nigh. be
iAcult to say in advance what will
: required. there IS nothing uncertain
oncerning the natural Inconvenience
the reduction Of the LiI.hz street