The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1916-01-11

Details Of Decision
The decision, in full, is as follows;
"When this case was called for
trial, plaintiff asked to amend its com.
plant; and the court then stated that
each side would be allowed to amend
their pleaaings rs they saw proper. 1t
further stated that in the introduction
of evidence great hberality would be
allowed, and that when the court held
that any evidence offered was not prop.
or, still il the party Offering the same
insisted upon ii, il would be allowed to
go into the record. This was done in
order that the rights Of the parties
might be fully preserved, and any err
rors committed by the trial court could
be corrected by a higher court without
sending the cause back for a new trial.
The court stated that upon passing
on the case he would consider that evil
denee only which he considered legiti-
mate and proper; to all of which state
ments and rulings of the court each of
the parties consented in open court
The terms franchise and charter
as l shall use them hereafter, shall
be considered as identical. l may not
quote figures with exact precision, but
SO closely will they be followed that
If any mistakes are made they will be
of no Importance.
THE bill presents but one question,
namely: should the Rapid Transit Com.
Pany be enjoined from increasing its
stock from $1,207 500 to $I,6OO,OO6f
1.-The Territory, though given the
opportunity to amend, has several times
refused 70 enlarge the issues, and the
courts hands are tied as regards any
other question than the one stated,
that might have been presented.
What Territory Claimed
1T is claimed by the plaintiff that
the value of the property on which
the amount of stock may be issued is
to be gagged by the measure that is
applied by the courts and the Interstate
Commerce G Jmmission, in fixing rates
that may be charged by public
utility; that is to say, what is the
present value today in cash, supposing
the defendant was DESTROYS of selling
to purchaser who desired to buy this
plant. IT is upon such value that
rates are usually fixed. '''
''On the other hand, the defendant
claims that by an express provision
Of its franchise, IL is entitled to issue
stock for the fun amount of the
legitimate cost of its plant and
twenty five per cent in addition thereto,
and l find that the charter 30 reads.
10 illustrate, il this plant had actually |
cost $2,50O,000, by the charter defend. |
ant may properly issue stock to that
amount and twenty-five per cent in ad-
dition, or So, 10000, although the
property may not be worth more at the
present time than $4,000 900. This is
undoubtedly the reading of the defend,
ant 5 franchise or charter. Plaintiff
claims that stock should issue only to
the value of the plant as it now stands,
after deducting from its cost value
all depreciation that may have arisen
from any cause.
Evidence has been allowed to be in,
troduced to the full content Of the
parties on both theories; so that a
higher court than this one may correct
all errors that this court may make.
The assessor testimony and the as
SCISSORS books introduced in evidence
show that the assessed value, which
in this Territory is placed at the actual
cash value OF the property, is, and was
at the time this case commenced,
81, l39, 1000. If we add twenty five per
NOHb ~ Iiis1 BiNeS US an authorized
issue of stock Of $2,674 1897 so.
Barringer Capable Engineer
Mr.. Barringer, the plaintiff s first
witness, a Very capable engineer, who (
has put in SOME three month in closely
investigating and carefully valuing the
plant, finds that II has cost the defend. :
ant VI ,589, 5000. But Barringer did
not include everything which was later {
included in the stipulation showing a
cash outlay and cost to the defendant
Of $2l7l,976.1l (see plaintiffs ex-
hibit W. Add twenty five per cent {
to this and we have an authorized
stock issue of $2,714,970.l3.
. Barringer claims that the deprecia.
ton up to this time amounts to 1924 {
15499 This still authorizes a stock
ssue on this depressed value Of 3d.
J90,Ol5l4
Mr.. Young, another learned engi, !
leer, introduced by the Territory,
ixes the cost and original value of the
plant as per Exhibit U. at 1881, I
IOl.74. But to this is to be added the
ramways purchase and the Pearl Har- T
'nr traction extension, as shown by Elk {
! bit U. which again brings the first cost
o $2,l7l ,976.ll, and by adding the
wenty five per cent we again have an
authorized stock basis of $2,7l4,97O.l3. p
Dung finds depreciation of $685..
'7l.ll. This, taken from $2,7l4,97O.l3, {
caves m authorized capital stock Of ]
II .73l .459.02 G
This is simply an illustration Of the |