The Hawaiian gazette., 1912-01-16
ASK MORE TIME
IN MAHUEA CASE
Attorneys No, Ready with Case
as They Believed Ccndein-
nation Was Pau.
tFrOm Sundays AdvOrtlsor.)

(From Sundays Advortisor.)
After Judge Dole In the federal court
had overrulcd the domurrors presented
by property holders IN tho Mahuka sllo
case yesterday morning. the attorneys
for the defendants asked for thirty
days in which to prepare their answers.
They stated that everyone thought an.
othor site would be chosen and so they
had done no preliminary work az they
believed the Aiahuka site would never
come into court on condemnation pro.
ceedings,
"We were justified in thinking that
there would be change Of site from
the attitude of this Homm6nity, and
until this cable came few days ago
we did not think these condemnation
proceedings would ever go to trial. AS
result, we have done nothing to pre-
pare for this case, and it Doems to me
that thirty days is not too much to
ask in which to file our answers" said
Attorney Olson. To this statement the
other attorneys agreed.
Prominent Attorneys.
There was an imposing array of legal
talent on the part of the property own.
ers lined up against District Attorney
BIeckons when the Mahuka site case
was called yesterday morning, the four
most important law firms Ia Honolulu
being represented at the bar.
The law firms in the case and their
clients are.
Thompson, Wilder, Watson q Lymer
for h. .. Hall g. Son, Ltd.
Kinney, PFosser, Anderson & Marx
for Hawaiian Trust Co., Ltd; Castle
& Cooke, Ltd.
Smith, Warren & Hemenway for The
Bank of Hawaii, Ltd; Charles NJ.
Cooke, Ltd; Office Supply Co., Ltd;
Anna G. Cooke; G. Montague Cooke
Jr; Clarence II. Cooke; George r.
Cooke; Richard A. Cooke; Alice T..
Cooke; Theodore A. Cooke; Castle s.
Cooke.
Holmes, Stanley & Olson fer Cush-
man Carter, Trustee; Ariana L. Aus
tin; Herbert Austin; Walter Austin;
Edith Austin. Herbert Austin and
Walter Austin, executors and testament
tary trustees under the will of james
w. Austin, deceased.
In addition there are several others
who did not take this action. They
and their legal representative are:
Lorrin Andrews for John A. Cum
minis, Kapeka A. Cummips, Charles Ma
hoe, Hattie Mahoe.
No Money Available.
When the case was called for the
hearing ON demurrers to the amended
complaint, Attorney Anderson was the
first to address the court saying that
in this demurrer no new points were
raised, and it is merely a repetition of
the one fled to the original complaint.
1--WE wish to make no formal argument
at this time, said the attorney, eve
are merely renewing our protest to the
procedure by congress in this matter
when there is no money available to
pay for this land. The value far ex-
ceeds the appropriation made, and
when congress realizes this It will prob.
ably dismiss the whole matter, and
take some other site, thus putting us
to considerable trouble and expense for
which we shall have no financial rem
edy," he said.
Point Overlooked.
"There is one point which l think
Judge Robertson overlooked in over
ruling our demurrers to the original
complaint said Attorney Wilder,
and that is the matter of an appro-
priation. Under section 20 of the law
of June 25, 1910, the secretary of war
is allowed $350,000 to purchase addi-
tional land for the site of the federal
building. Section 33 of the same act
provides that no money can be paid
for site for public building in addi-
tlon to that of a specific appropriation.
We hold that there is no specific appro-
priation by congress to purchase this
additional land"
Attorneys Olson and Warren told the
court that they took the same ground
in the matter, and had nothing to add
to what had been said already.
In reply to these statements District
Attorney Breckons said that every
point on the demurrers to the amended
complaint had been overruled by Judge
Robertson, those sustained by him
being omitted in these second demur-
reEs. AS to the overlooking of certain
conditions spoken of by Attorney VIII
der, he held that when authority was
given by congress to acquire . site
that was all that was necessary, Il
was immaterial whether tho money had
been appropriated or not.
Dole Decides
Judge Dole overruled the demurrsrs.
stating by the way that one Judge
could not go back Of another judge's
ruling IN the same court. Attorney
Wilder then asked for thirty days IL
which 70 prepare the answer 10 the
complaint, but this WAS objected 10 b.
the district attorney, as he thought III
teen days we're all that would be nee
essafy.
''fhe law points are al settled IL
this matter aud tie only thing nov
remaining 10 be aeiiled Is the value