The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1909-06-19
LLOYD LOSES CASE
CONTINUED from Page one)

specified amount for all typewriting
done by him; that during the time
i'm question, at the request and under
the direction of the speaker, he pre-
pared in typewrting the minutes OF
the house, compiling the same from
his stenographic notes. and made CO.
pies thereof, all of which were ac-
cepted ana used by the house and its
officers and committees; that under
Rule 10 of the house the duties of
the stenographer are prescribed, which
include transcribing such portions OF
the proceedings as may be requested
by any member; that he performed
the duties as official stenographer as
prescribed by the rule in question;
that the chairman of the committee
on accounts declared that he would
be paid for all typewriting of min
utes; that at former sessions it has
been the custom of the house to pay
the official senographer for typewrit-
ing the minutes and making copies
thereof; and that the claim was dis
allowed by the committee on accounts
and by the house. The defendant
demurred to the petition on the
grounds that no cause of action was
stated and that consequently this court
has no jurisdiction
Plaintiffs clam is substantially for
extra work done by him which he
argues was in addition to and out
side of the duties OF the stenograph-
er as prescribed by Rule Is of the
house which reads as follows: 1T
shall be the duty of the stenographer
to record in full in shorthand all pro-
ceedings of the house, rulings of the
chair, and debates, and he shall trans
cribe such portions thereof that he
may from time to time be requested
by any member"
1t is argued on behalf of defendant
that the services in question rendered
by plaintiff were under the rule quot
ed a part of his duties for which he
was paid and allowed $40 day, but
If not then that the petition does not
disclose that agreement for extra
compensation made by the speaker
tees was one which they were auth
orized to make, citing r. L. Sec. 2000,
necessitating the sustaining of the de-
INJURED. That part of the section
which is material reads as follows:
"The supreme court shall have eX-
elusive jurisdiction to hear and de-
termine the following matters, and
shall determine all questions of fact
involved without the interv of
a ury. First. All claims against the
Territory founded upon any
contract. express or implied, with the
Territory provided, however,
that no suit shall be maintained, nor
shall any process issue against the
Territory, based on any contract or
any act Of any territorial officer which
such officer is not authorized to make
or do by the laws of this Territory,
! The agreement by the three officers
, of the house that plaintiff should be
paid for all typewriting done by him
must have reference to extra work
in addition to the prescribed duties OF
the stenographer, as it could not be
contended on any theory that plain
tiff may recover for doing that which
II was his duty to do and for which
he was paid. The petition does not
disclose what, il any, authority the
three officers had to make the agree
ment in question, and consequently it
is defective. Such authority must ap-
pear from one alterations of the pc
pear from the allegations Of the pc
tition. We do not know and it
cannot be learned from the pc
tition what the powers of these Off
GERS were. AS such. the speaker and
|, the chairmen of the committees on
accounts and printing have no more
: power to bind the Territory to such
an agreement than any other three
members. Although the petition al
leges that the typewriter copies OF
the minutes made by plaintiff were
accepted and used by the house, this
did not constitute a ratification or an
adoption OF an agreement which is not
shown the officers had power to enter
into, as 1t does not appear that the
members of the house had any tnowl-
edge of the agreement, and even Il
, they had such knowledge they might
have thought that fhe duties OF the
: stenogTapher included the work il
/, question, The fact that at former SEES
sions it has been the custom to pay
the stenographer extra for such ser
vices is immaterial.
j 1t is not clear from the petition
whether the services rendered consti
tuted extra work. It is alleged tina
: plaintiff prepared in typewIiting tn,
minutes of the house, compiling tn,
same from his stenographic notes
and made copies thereof. 1t was tn