Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1910-05-21
BAGGAGE
City Transfer Co.,
JAS. H. LOVE. PHONE 1872
PAVING CONTRACT
FULLY SUSTAINED
City Transfer Co.,
JAS. H. LOVE.

OCTOBER TERM, 1909.
T.. J. LORD v. THE CITY AND
COUNTY OF HONOLULU; J. A.
GILMAN, AND JAMES BICK-
NELL, AUDITOR OF THE CITY
AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU.
APPEAL FROM. CIRCUIT COURT,
FIRST CIRCUIT.
Argued May IL. 1910.
Decided May 81. 1910.
HARTWELL, c. j., PERRY AND DE
BOLT, u.
Municipal corporations-con for
patented pavement--competitive
| bids.
| The statute, Sec. Act 90 S. l..
1909. does not require com.
petitive bids for a contract by
| the City and County OF Homo
! lulu for patented street
pavement as the same does
not admit Of competition.
OPINION OF THE COURT BY
HARTWELL, c. J.
with the exception below mention
ed the case is correctly stated by the
plaintif as follows: "This is a bill
for Injunction brought by a taxpayer
to restrain the City and County OF
Honolulu from entering into a CON
tract with J. A. Gilman for the nav.
Ing Of a portion OF Fort Street, Ho-
nolulu, and to restrain the auditor
OF the city and county from making
payments under said contract. The
complaint is based on the facts that
this contract involves the expendi.
ture OF over $500, to-wit about &c.
600, of public money for public
work. and that II was awarded with
out public advertisement for ten
ders, and was not awarded TO the
lowest bidder. as required by law.
The case was heard upon the bill OF
complaint and upon the return of
respondents to an order to show
cause why an injunction should not
issue; and from the decree OF the
third Judge Of the first circuit court
thereupon made Diminishing the bill
this appeal is taken. BY stipulation
also, the return Is adopted as the an.
swer OF the respondents, so that the
decree Is final. The answer OF the
Respondents return is: Cd That
the complainant is without suficien,
interest In tho subject matter TO on.
title him to relief; (2) that the
pavement mentioned In the bill OF
complaint is the product OF a patent
ed process which Is in a class by II.
self, and that the respondent, Gil
man, Is the only person In Hawaii
authorized to enter into contracts
for installing and constructing such
pavement In the Territory of Ha-
wall; from which the respondents
conclude: That the execution OF a
contract for such 'Bitulithic' pave
ment would be for a purpose not ad-
hitting OF competition. The plain.
tin. however, admitted In his brief
In reply and In argument that the
answer was that Gilman was the
only person authorized to enter into
a contract for constructing the nave.
ment In Hawaii. ~
The injunction was denied upon
hearing the order 10 show cause
Sec. /, Act So, s. l.. 1909, enacts:
mo expenditure Of public money, ex-
cept for salaries or pay OF officers
or employees. or for permanent set
Elements, subsidies or other claims
or objects for which a fixed sum or
sums must be paid by law, or for
other purposes which do not admit
OF competition. where the sum to be
expended shall be Five Hundred Dol.
lars $4,000 or more. shall be
made, except under contract let aft
er public advertisement for sealed
tenders, In the manner provided by
law; and no expenditure for public
purposes shall be SO divided or par
celled as to defeat or evade the pro-
visions OF this section. Provided,
however, that any county, or city
and county may. II Its Board OF Su-
pervisors shall so decide, expend