The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1909-07-15
COURT RULES
NOT OBSERVED
Appeal in Liquor Case Thrown
Out by the Highest
Tribunal.

of Jacintho Miguel against the Terri |
tory of Hawaii has been thrown out
of the Supreme Court, the mandate to
this effect having been received from
Washington yesterday.
The mandate states that the said
cause came on to be heard before the
said Supreme Court, aud it appearing
to the court that the parties have
failed to print the transcript of record,
it is therefore, in pursuance Of the
tenth rule of this court, now here or
dered and adjudged BY this court that
the writ Of error In this case be, and
the same is hereby, dismissed with
costs. and that the said appellee, re-
cover against the appellant, Jaclntho
Miguel, for it's costs herein expended
and have execution therefor.
Miguel secured writ of error to
the Supreme Court of the United States
from the decision of the Territorial
Supreme Court sustaining his convic-
ton and sentence to pay fine of 800
for selling liquor without license, and
was designed to test the constitutions
atty of the Territorial liquor law.
Lloyd Scores One.
James w. Lloyd has scored tenn
porarv victory in his suit against the
Territory for money alleged to be due
him because of extra services per-
formed for the last Legislature. In
decision written byJustice Wilder of the
Supreme Court yesterday the demurrer
of the Territory to Lloyd's petition is
overruled and the defendant given
/ twenty days in which to answer.
In the course of the decision the SUI
! preme Court says:
"A demurrer to the original petition
! having been sustained and plaintiff
| having filed an amended petition, the
| defendant again demurs on the same
grounds as before.
"a restatement of the allegations
in the first petition and which are
/ again set forth in the present one will
not be made. It definitely appears
in the amended petition that the ser
vices rendered by plaintiff for which
| compensation is sought in this action
were not part of his duties as
stenographer of the House of Repre-
sentatives and constituted extra work.
Rule 10 of the House provides in part
1 that all of the officers of the House
| shall be directly responsible to the
speaker and shall obey all of his or
| ders and directions subject TO revision
| by the House Rule 81 of the House
makes it the duty of the committee on
! public expenditures and accounts to
| ssuperintend and control the contingent
expenses of the House and TO audit
and settle all accounts which may be
| charged thereon and further pro-
| vides that mo bills shall be incurred
| without the order of the said commit
tee. Tie reasonable value of the
/ services is also alleged.
"The power of the speaker to re-
quire the officers of the House to obey
and perform his orders and directions
did not give him power to bind the
House. TO pay for extra work which he
| ordered or directed to be done, but
only had reference to orders and di-
rections in regard to the regular, usual
and prescribed duties of the officers.
Nothing is alleged as to the powers of
the committee on enrolment, revision
and printing Whether the committee
on public expenditures and accounts,
whose functions during the time in
| question it is alleged were assumed and
performed by it's chairman with the
acquiescence of the other members of
the committee. had the power to enter
into the agreement with plaintiff in
regard to compensation for extra work
/ by implication from its duty to super
| intend and control the contingent ex-
| penses of the House and to audit and
| settle all accounts charged thereon,
need not be determined in view of our
conclusion on the subject of ratifca-
ton.
1.-The demurrer is overruled, defend
ant being allowed twenty days within
which to answer, If so advised -
r. P Quarles, for plaintiff; E. w.
Sutton, Deputy Attorney General, for
defendant.
Hartwen Dissents.
In majority decision yesterday the
Supreme Court held that the zee Sing
stables were not entitled to portion
of the fire claim award of $500 to
the estate of William Brash, for build
ings which were erected by the appel,
liant as lessees. In the course of his
dissenting opinion Chief Justice Hart
we'll says:
: "Sec. of Act Is S. L. 1901, to
provide for the ascertainment and pay
ment of all claims which may be made
by persons whose property was destroy,
ed by fire. under orders of the Board
of Health in connection with the sup.
preston of the bubonic plague in Ho'
nolulu, provides that no claim shall be
considered for loss of rent or use OF
property nor for 'any loss except fol
the destruction of or direct damage tc
property by fire or removal
The ease presents the question
whether under the act lessees have s
:. claim for loss incurred by the burning
of buildings erected by them on leased
, premises under a lease providing thai
at its termination the buildings shall
belong to the lessor. Was the loss Of
! the lessees not the subject of a claim
because it was the loss of the use OF
| DroDertv or have they also lost nron