Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1910-03-24
SUPREME COURT
RULES ON CASE
Confined from Page ~

Continued from Page ~
Geo ordered by the United states
supreme court reversing the judg-
;nept of this court in an action
against the Territory to recover that
SUN for breach of an agreement
made with the American Board of
Foreign Missions by the government
of the Hawaiian Monarchy In tsi9
that in carrying on the Lahainaluna
school II would not teach or allow
to be taught any religious tenet or
doctrine contrary to those thereto
fore inculcated by the mission, and
expressed in the Confession of
Faith" set forth in the opinion in
10 Haw 123,. 1871, 1872. il
In Bowler v. Board of Immigra-
ton, and Cleghorn, Collector General
of Customs, v. Luce, Z Haw, 715
GsS9), 1t was held that attorneys
fees and commissions were not re-
coverable against the government,
the court saying Up. 716):
I'VE think 1t sound principle
that where, the Government co
nomine is sued or brings a suit, or
where department or bureau or Of
ficer Of the, Government has brought
suit or is sued concerning matter
which in fact is not personal, but in
wolves a claim of the Government
rs plaintiff, or liability Of the
Government as defendant, the plain
tiff recovering should not have judg-
iaent for attorneys fees or commits
sions, nor should the plaintiff on
losing be taxed with attorneys fees
and commissions on the amount sued
for
The practice undoubtedly has
since conformed to this ruling and
we see no reason for reconsidering
or reversing It. The plaintiffs claim
in their petition, which is not enti-
tied in assumpsit, is for "iifteen
thousand dollars for which they
pay judgment, not asking costs.
The plaintiffs also ask that their
judgment he entered as of Septem-
ber s, $685." the date of the judg-
Elent for the defendant which has
bsen reversed, their object being to
obtain interest on the judgment from
that date, the statute declaring (Sec.
20O7 II. ID that mo interest shall
be allowed on any claim up to the
time of the rendition of judgment
thereon by the court unless upon a
contract expressly stipulating for the
payment of interest They claim
that since the United States supreme
court has held that this court was
in error they have been wronged
since the date of our judgment
against them, and that it Is equita-
bic that the judgment in their ia
vor be antcdated. The Territory OPP
poses this claim and submits that
the statute does not allow Interest
after judgment unless stipulated for
by contract.
1t is unnecessary to pass upon
this matter, but only to decide
whether the Judgment shall be en-
tered upon the day of its rendition
or be made retrospective in effect.
1t is true that, everything this court.
the United States supreme court held
that the Hawaiian. government en-
gagged to teach "the definite relig-
ious doctrine expressed in the con-
fession of faith" and that 1t was
not enough that religion should be
taught, and that as taught 1t should
not be contrary to the doctrines men,
toned" or that from 1877 until the
present date the course of religious
instruction has been substantially the
same" and that IL there had been
any breach of the agreement as early
as 1877, acquiesced in by the par
ties, this would not amount to a
waiver of the plaintiffs claim,
The statute. however, Is impera-
tive in prohibiting interest prior to
the time of the rendition of judg-
ment. Nor does the case come with
In the sclass in which delay of tho
court In coming 20 its conclusion or
the death of a party after the. trial
and submission of cause requires