Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1915-08-25
Counsel For Both Sides Argue
as to Extent OF Work Done BY
City Prior to Injunction

4
Argument was to Be completed to-
day in the Injunction suit br atgat by,
Raymond C. Brown, acting for citizen
and taxpayers of Manoa, against th
city and county. the supervisors an
other municipal officers, and It is
pected that Circuit Judge T. b. Stuaf
viii at once take the matter under a.
yisement preparatory to handing dow.
decision.
The argument OF both sides has been
| lengthy and has dealt largely with th,.
question Of what does, and what does
not constitute maintenance. repair
and reconstruction in road work.
In the complaint the petitioner al
legged that the work which was being
done byftise city and county On that
uortion OF Queen street from the NIu
anu Stream TO the pris n road: the
approach 10 the Hackfeld wharf and
section Of road. at the intersection OF
Berefania and King streets, in Moi.ii
II, was in excess OF maintenance and
repairs and therefore in violation o.
/ that section OF The revised laws which
provides for road work which shall be
paid for out of public funds. Tie re.
spcndents contend that all the work
was in the nature of repairs. and that
| ii did not constitute reconstruction.
The argument as presented by At
torney Clarence II. Olson, counsel for
the petitioner, has been, in effect, as
follows;
what Does Act Mean?
In the first place, il was pointed out
that the only question before the co irt
was in The interpretation OF the terms
repairs" and maintenance" as used
IN an act Of the legislature of 1915
and, in that connection, attention was
called ITO the fact that this act pro
yides general scheme OF road i'm
pToyement on the assessment Ian,
under which road Improvements and
construction may not be made out Of
the public treasury, with the excep-
ton OF ordinary repairs and main
tenance.
The improving of roads, as cavereS
in the statute. covers new work
curbfns, altering and improving streets
or any parts thereof, and therefore
anything that is real reconstruction
whether crsnotin any case. work that
is done on street is reconstruction
Tor repairs, Is therefore the test, couu
sci argued. and, according to the facts
shoWnsin the ease, as well as the testi
niony Of all the engineers who ap-
peared as Witnesses. there could be
no question that the work on Queen
street and the road running from
Queen street to the wharyes was re-
construction rather than repairs, be-
cause the entire surface was repaired
with an asphalt -macadam pavement
about six inches thick, Olson con-
finued
This pavement. counsel said, was
more durable and more expensive than
any pavement switch had been on the
streets before, and its cost was inst
as great as that of the original pave
meft
On Beretania street, the testimony
Of the city and county engineer, L.
NJ. Whitehouse; showed that the real
purpose for filling the street was to
bring the street up to grade in two
sections where. for some reason, the
road was considerably lower than the
general grade Of the street, stated
counsel. = Therefore that too was in
fact new construction, although the
claim was made that it was merely
fe1airs.
Olsen SMats Whitehouse.
s'T'he bhly excuse for the work tln-.
dertaken by the city officials in these
instances is to be found in the theory
expounded by the city and county en-
gineer in his testimony when, yester
day morning he stated that, in his
opinion. anything, would be repairs,
no matter how extensive. If done to
restore road to its original condi-
ton, counsel continued.
[ In other words, said Attorney Oh
son. IL. at some time in the past, there
had been pavement on portion of
the road which had been worn thin
------