Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1908-01-20
JIunt 1u,A 6o.GA
q,L Font Il, NonoG.CV

unreasOnably retard transaction of
the detrimont and irreparable injury
of the public and contrary to its
rights in that behalf; that certain
residents adjacent to Liliha street
lave complained to the Attorney Gen
eral and represented to him that the
convenience Of the public generally,
and Liliha street residents In partic-
ular, requires a ten-minute service
upon that street and that Il service of
a greater interval than ten minutes
between cars would he a serious in
convenience to them and to the public
generally.
The defendant in its answer AYERS
that the court has no jurisdiction of
the subject matter of the suit; that
the allegations in the bill set forth
no ground of complaint against the
defendant or for relief by injunction
or otherwise or cause for the exercise
of the jurisdiction of the court; that
'hN blll hN'o NV olp" NiAtN NV l'l
tory authorized the suit or Is a prop
er party; admits that in many cases
its schedules are so arranged that
cars of connecting lines meet nearly
simultaneously at transfer points,
but denies that this is the case gener-
ally or that its line over Liliha street
Is about two miles long. being 7,1O1
ieet, or that it runs through dense
iy populated district in which are
about or approximately 5000 resi-
dents; denies that the convenience If
the public requires a ten.minutc sChe
dule or that the proposed change
would not operate to the public con-
Nenience; AYERS that in the endeavor
to improve the service of the LiliLa-
Waialae line it proposed continue
GUS l5-mlnute service from Waiaae
to Liliha street but after conference
with certain persons representing Lii
liha street patrons and others rep
resenting the Waialae portion of the
route and after thorough canvass
of the situation and discussion of all
the facts in regard to the necessity OF
travel at each end and the convent
ence of the general public it was
unanimously agreed and, at the rec
Ommendation of said persons, the de-
PENDANT consented to change its plan
and modify the schedule of the Liliha
Main lao lima a1lnuAI In, hn lit
and was proceeding to do so at the
time of the SERVED of the Temporary
injunction which was made upon the
filing of the bill; that the proposed
service Is all that the eXigencies OF
travel along the line and the accom-
mediation of the patrons or the road
demand with view to economical Oh
Grafton of the system ana is an ample
service under all the conditions.
The defendant contends that eq-
uity has no Jurisdiction, but that
mandamus Is the only remedy to en-
force statutory obligation: that in
junction does not lie to enforce ac-
ton but only to prevent injury, and
that the statutory provision (Sec. $40
X. Id for forfeiture of franchise, If
1t fails to comply with the require
nents Of the statute, is the exclusive
remedy, but that mandamus would
not lie because no duty is imposed by
law to run cars at any particular
time; that The law gives the corpora
ton discretion as to times of run
ming Its cars and that If there is any
reserve power to control the discre-
ton 1t is the Legislature only and
Al TIL TIC EIrl.IECn Lnn