The Hawaiian gazette., 1916-07-25

| lothl "uI circuits 10 1Z,S0S,UUO,UOU,
tered, and from that decree the Terri
tory has appealed"
| Following this the supreme court
, opinion goes deeply and extensively in
to the questions raised in the suit. Te-
wards the end Of the opinion the chief
justice says:
1.-THE Honolulu Rapid Transit and
! Land Company was incorporated for
the purpose of exercising the franchise
granted by Act 60 Of the Session Laws
of 1898, and possesses all the powers
conferred by that act. Section 81 au.
thorized the issuance of capital stock
equal to the amount of the actual cost
of the property Of the company and
not over twenty-five per cent of such
cost in addition thereto. :
1.-THE meaning of the term 'actual
cost having been ascertained there is
no further doubt as TO the meaning of
the provision. The intent is plain and
there is no room for construction. The
question as to the present value of the
company's property does not affect the
comPany's right to increase its capital
stock
Value Held At Near $4,000, 1000
In closing his lengthy opinion the
chief justice says:
"As to the matter of the cost of the
company's property we find that, after
leaving out of consideration certain dis
puted items as to which there may per
haps be some doubt, there should be
added to the sum Of $1,6O3, O56.6S, ad.
mitted by the complainant to have
been actually and properly expended,
the items of 1886, 54994, purchase of
Hawaiian Tramways Company, and
$79,024.43, Pearl Harbor Traction, max
ing total of 1897 ,63l.O5.
rand we hold that the actual cost of
the property of the company was not
less than that sum, except that there
should be deducted the amount of ex-
cess profits, if any, invested in proper
ty which would otherwise have been
payable to the Territory under section
II Of the act as herein before stated.
"This conclusion does not change the
ultimate result arrived at by the cir.
cult judge in Diminishing the bill. The
decree appealed from will therefore be
affirmed.
"There were other and subordinate
questions discussed in the briefs and
argument which we deem it umneces-
sary to comment upon"
Judge Watson Concurs
. In concluding his concurring opin-
ion Associte Justice Watson says:
/. In my opinion, under the stipula-
ton entered into by the parties as to
the cost of the property Of the com
'Pany, and under all the evidence in the
case, the decree of the lower court
should be affirmed"
Associate Justice Quarle 5 concurring
opinion is as follows:
81 concur in the conclusion that the
decree denying the injunction sought to
be affirmed on the grounds that the
proven facts show that the defendant =
corporations property exceeds in cost
the amount to which it proposes to in.
crease its capital stock in the nggre-
gate.
"Many questions entirely without
issues made by the pleudings have not
been discussed in the briefs and oral
arguments and to some extent in the
principal opinion.
''The issues made by the plcadiugs
raise only one question, l. G., whether
under the facts the defendant has the
power under the franchise act and its
articles of Incorporation under which
II operates, and under the general in
corporation laws of the Territory, to
increase its aggregate capital stock to
81 900, 900.
Associate Quarles' Kokua
e. "a written stipulation was filed
wherein it appears by agreement Of
both parties to this suit that the cost of
the defendant properties exceeds the
sum named. The injunction sought was
demanded upon, the sole ground that
the proposed issue of stock would in
crease the capital stock OF the defend
ant to an amount in excess of the cost
of its properties in violation of section
81 of the said franchise act. and ou
this issuo the evidence and admitted
facts are against the contention of the
Territory.
ITO my mind the provisions Of see
tions II and 81 Of the franchise act,
which sections are quoted in the prin
cipal opinion, are plain and free from
ambiguity and call for no cOnst ructi0n
by intrinsic aid or otherwise. The |
phrase in this section 81 increase its |
capital stock means 6ust what !
those words import in their usual and
ordinary Specification and said section
does not authorize the defendant to |
water its stock or to issue stock !
dividends except in the manner author |
lied by section 1899 X. l.. The words
right and power mean different !
things. 1t is only a question of power
that is involved here. The right of the
defendant to issue some of the stock /,
heretofore issued by it and to issue
further stock, and the disposition of +
such stock US well as the amount of |
excess income heretofore earned by the
defendant, to which the Territory is en-,
titled, are matters to be settled in some [
other suit oP suits and are not involved
in the issued now before this court"