The Hawaiian gazette., 1916-09-15
BERETAN|A Street
IMPROVEMENT WILL
PROCEED PROMPTLY
City Attorneys Office Advises
Supervisors Lessee Signatures
To Protest Are Invalid
MUNICIPAL ENGINEER
DIRECTED TO COMMENCE
Petition Filed Against Improve
ment Is Found To Be ChoCk
Full of Flaws

Improvement of Bcretania street
from Nuuanu to King, is to proceed,
despite the protests filed August 90
Deputy City Attorney Cristy's written
opinion was submitted to the suPPrvis,
ors last night and, as surmised several
days ago by The Advertiser, he holds
that approximately thirty per cent Of
the protests are invalid.
The board accepted his opinion and
acted upon it, adopting a resolution
declaring that on August 20 sufficient
protests to block the improvement
were not fled; consequently the city
engineer is authorized to complete his
preliminary preparations, just as though
no protest had been filed.
Oristy holds that protests represent
ing ownership of only 1885 feet
frontage in Beretania street can be al
lowed. This is only forty-three and
Seven-tcnhs per cent of the entire
frontage affected, while the law stipu-
lates that the project can be prevent
ed only by. protest representing
dfty-fve per eent of the frontage.
Ruling Eliminates Frontage
This meant, in the case of Bere-
'ania, that the frontage protest would
ave to be 223l.4 feet. The protest
which was filed and which was alleged
o have been circulated at the behest
f l.. l.. McOHndless, purportcd to rep
resent 2990.9 feet frontage, but Girls
ty's ruling eliminates 1888 feet.
In addition, two owners who had
signed the protest have asked permits
ion since that time to withdraw their
objections. These are William A. Hall
and Frank Pahia. The board last night
granted their request, to be effective
as of August 20, the date on which
the public hearing took place.
Cristy's opinion holds that lessees
are without authority to protest against
improvement of streets in front of
PREMISES which they occupy. He bases
his contention on section 1875, Of the
?evised Laws of 1915, as amended by
Act 1854, which he asserts specifies
- owners" saying nothing about les
ices. The section as quoted by him
'tates that the veto to a frontage i'm
)rovPment project can be given by
ifty.fvc per cent of the owners, who
ile protests duly acknowledged.
Agents and Lessees Sign
In the Beretania affair, investigation
disclosed the fact that several agents
or owners and lcssccs signed the pro-
est, and their signatures were not duly
acknowledged. In one instance, five
essecs Of the Montgomery Estate prop
crty, holding frontage of 1926 feet,
igncd the objection but the owner re-
fused to attach his name In another
instance protestor, relied on as owner
of 1879 feet, was found actually to own
but seventytwo feet In still another,
n frontage Of fifty feet was represented
by one signer, when in reality the lot
is owned by five Chinese.
In still other instances lessees were
found to be renters from month to
month. Those whose protests were de-
clarcd invalid, in whole or in part are
as follows: william 4. Hall, d. Maya
TAM, Pang Tim, Pang See zee HOuck,
Wee Zip, Cow Chong, panG Sau, Wo
Chung Company, Lum II. Chez, Chun
Chin, Fong Lee Shcr, X. Tnnaka and
X. Ohisa.