Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1915-08-14
ANSWER INSISTS
ALL ROAD WORKS
CONFORM T0lAW
Nothing Paid for Out of General
Fund Other Than Legal Re-
pairs and Betterments


restricting the use OF the genera
funds for road work. other than main
tenance and repairs, is the contention
OF the city In an answer fled in cir
cult court today 10 an injunction suit
brought by Raymond C. Brown. act
ing Tor citizens and taxpayers of Ma
noa
The respondents deny absolutely
that such work as was done was SO
akin TO original construction" that !,
should have been done under tho
frontage tax law.
A temporary injunction issued b,
Cire4iit Judge Stuart is holding vi
street work in three separate sections
OF Honolulu The original complain
alleged that the work being done wa
In excess OF maintenance and repair
and that IL was not in conformity with
sections 1873 and 1875 of the revised
laws OF 1915, as amended by act rs
Of the session laws of 1915.
As reported recently in the Star
Bulletin, II is the intention of the cit,
and county, supervisors and other re
spopdents to make a test case of the
hearing. with view to interpreting
the statute to the extent of what does
and lwhat does not constitute main
tenance and repairs In road work.
The answer OF the respondents ad
nits that the city and county, through
its ilproper officials, improved and
caused to be improved certain por
tions of the streets In the city an6
county, but denies that such improve
mepts were done under "pretense o.
naIntaining' the portions of streets
It IS alleged that the work constitutes
prQper and necessary repairs and
maintenance of the streets.
Iteis further denied in the answer
thatsthe repair Of the streets or por
tons thereof was made In the manner
alleeed in the complaint.
Work Not Permanent.
The road work done was not perma
nent but was in the nature of repair
work, the answer alleges, and was
necessary for the purpose of render
ing the streets passable, serviceable
and Iefiicient, and was done for these
purposes alone.
Respondents further aver that tho
WORT 50 done is the work complained
OF By the petitioner In his complaint"
says the answer, and that no other
or different work has been done byi
thei respondents. or by the city aif
county OF Honolulu, in or upon the
streets or portions thereof, named Ii
said complaint"
The respondents admit that It Is
the mtention of the proper officers OF !,
the city and county to proceed to 70
matt The 6freafg- a.. ~ Z. :, \ -.
set forth and alleged in the answer
and to pay for such repair work anc
maintenance out of the general funds
OF the city and county.
ltlis denied that the road work con
stitutes betterments or improvements
except as set forth In the answer.
The answer continues, In part. as
follows:
Respondents deny that the Inn.
provement of said streets or portions
thereof was made or done in the man
ner set forth and described in para,
graph OF said petition.
And In this behalf respondents al
slege and aver that on 2S feet of the
40-f0ot wide roadway of Queen street
from the Nuuanu stream to the pre-
sent road the respondent, the city and
county of Honolulu as aforesaid, did
certain road work in manner follow.
ing.t
The said portion of Queen street
was scarified, shaped and rolled and
crushed rock then laid thereon to the
original grade of said street, which
said rock was bound with asphalt.
That the work so done on said street
was in all respects the same as the
work done when the said street was
constructed In 1904, and the grade
thereof approximately the same as
the grade of said street when so con-
strNcted in 1904. except that in the
original construction of said street the
surfacing of crushed rock was water
bound instead Of being bound with
asphalt.
"Fhat 80 feet of the Sc feet wide
roadway of the street extending from
Queen street to said Pier Is and known
as the approach to the Hackfeld
wharf was repaired in the same man
ner as the portion Of Queen street and
that the grade was not raised, but was
made to conform with the proper and
established grade.
That the aforesaid streets and por-
tons thereof had been built and con-
structed in 1904 and that thereafter
no proper and sufficient maintenance
had been made or had, and that the |
surface had been worn by traffic and |
eroded by the elements, and that by |
nature of the composition of the land |
wherein said streets were constructed
the said streets had settled; that in |
order 20 render the same serviceable |
and efficient, IL became necessary to re-
pair the said streets, and such repair
work was done in manner and form
as hereinbefore set forth.
And as to the improvement or road |
work done on Beretania street, res
pondents allege and aver as follows: /
THAT such road work or improve /
ment was done upon certain portions
of Beretania street between the juno |
tion of Beretania and King streets and |
the intersection of McCully street with
Beretania street, distance of approx. /
ju4ofnly 2e0 foaf