The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1912-05-25

preme court yesterday afternoon, Chief
Justice Robertson being it's author,
upon the agreed statement of facts
to settle the controversy between the
superintendent of public works and
the board of supervisors, on the one
hand, and the Rapid Transit Co., on
the other, relative to paving the
streets along the companys right of
way. On the whole the pronounce
ment is in favor of the municipal gov.
eminent. Seven questions submitted
were answered as follows:
81. Does the action of the mum.
cipal authorities of the City and Coun.
ty Of Honolulu in the premises create
any obligation on the part of the Ho-
nolulu Rapid Transit G. Land Company
which can be enforced under Section
2 Of said Act (Section S3S Revised
Laws of HawaiD?"
Yes.
"2. Has the superintendent of pub.
lie works discretion as to the kind Of
paving he shall direct the Honolulu
Rapid Transit & Land Company 10
make in the premises? May he direct
that other kinds of pavement than
used by the City and County of Ho.
nolulu on said street, be laid by the
Honolulu Rapid Transit & Land Com.
pany?"
No.
"S. Has the Honolulu Rapid Transit
& Land Company, by matchmaking as
set forth, the portion of King street
referred to, complied with the obliga.
ton of its charter and the law to pave
or macadamize as set forth in Section
of the Act of July 1, 1898 (SectioD
1913 Revised Laws of Hawaii) 80 as 70
free it of any or all obligation to pave
said portion of said street in the man.
ner directed by the superintendent Of
public works or in the manner in
which the remaining portion of said
street has been paved by the City
and County of Honolulu"
No.
d. Is it a reasonable requirement
under the provisions of it's charter and
the law that the Honolulu Rapid Tran
sit G Land Company should be requir.
ed to lay a paving of the kind afore-
said under the conditions herein set
forth?"
Yes.
"5. Is 1t a reasonable requirement,
under the provisions of it's charter and
the law that the Honolulu Rapid Tran.
sit G Land Company should be requir
ed to lay paving of a patented mate
rial, which they are obliged to main
tain, and the furnishing Of which is
entirely under the control of the own.
er of the patents"
Yes.
&c. IN view of the foregoing facts
of the Revised Laws and more particu.
larly in Sections S3S and S64 of said
Chapter, is the Honolulu Rapid Tran.
sit G Land Company obliged to pave
the entire space between the outside
rails of it's said tracks on King street,
between the bridge over the Nuuanu
stream and Nuuanu street, so that
such paving shall be flush with said
street and correspond in material with
the paving of the remaining portion of
said street,"
Yes.
~. In view of said facts and law,
is the Honolulu Rapid Transit & Land
Company obliged to comply with said
notice of said superintendent of public
works?"
Yes.
The court says the word Territory
in the law "is equivalent to Govern
ment' and includes street improve
ments made by the municipality"
With regard to the equitable ques'
ton of compulsion raised by the com
pany the court has this to say:
Notwithstanding what we have
said in regard to the companys obli
cation to conform its pavements to
those laid down by governmental au
thority, the provisions of the fran
chise act, as contended by counsel
must be given a reasonable construc
ton and effect If at any time the
streets should be paved with such
material or in such manner as would
clearly be inadequate or wasteful Of
extravagant, it might properly be helt
that to require the company to con
form thereto would be an imposition
on the company. and that it was no
within the spirit and intent OF thu
act that the. company should be ex
pected to comply under such circum
stances. Counsel for the railway com
pany contend that, in view Of the fac
that nearly one-half of the life of it
franchise hoe nassad n ia unraasnu