The Maui news. [volume] (Wailuku, Maui, H.I.) 1900-current, 1920-12-24
Finding of Fact and Decision

lC Interest IN JQe questions involved
herein it feels the matters and issues
in the case, should be more fully dis
cussed and weighed than would be
necessary in a matter of less public
interest.
AS to the questions and matters in
volved herein the petition in this case
was filed September 81, 1920, by
Eugene Murphy, and sets forth that
he is a citizen of the United States,
a property owner, taxpayer and elect
or of the County of Maui, Territory
of Hawaii.
The allegations of the petition con.
corning respondent are that the res
pendent, w. A. Mckay, holds the
office of district magistrate of Wal.
luku, County of Maui, Territory of Ha-
wall; that respondent claims-as is
necessary under the circumstance
that he is Il citizen.
The further allegations of petition
er being that respondent is not a
citizen of the United States and of
the Territory Of Hawaii; and that res
pondent is not entitled to hold the
said Office, and to receive the emolu-
ments thereof. The prayer of the petit
ton being for the usual relief as in
cases of this nature.
To this petition respondent first
filed a special demurrer entitled mo
Jurisdiction in Equity" To this de-
murrer of the respondent petitioner
moved to amend by striking out the
words I'm Equity" which was done,
At hat time, also, a motion was made
to the effect that E. r. BevinS, one of
the attorneys for the respondent, by
reason of the fact that he is deputy
attorney general, was not eligible to
act for and on behalf of the respond
ent. | won't go into that question at
this time except to state that-as al
ready-the court felt that it was not
proper for a deputy attorney general
to represent respondent in this mat
ter, but that | might, however, consid-
er it proper for him to appear as
amicuS curiae.
The next proceeding on behalf of
the respondent was a demurrer, the
principal allegations being contained
in paragraphs l and II, as follows:
That the said proceedings are
not brought and instituted in the
name of the Territory of Hawaii,
as required by law.
II.
That the said petitioner is not
a proper party to institute n
maintain proceedings in the ma
ture of quo warranto or in a writ
of quo warranto upon his wv be-
half, but the said proceedings
should be instituted and maintain
ed in the name of the Territory
of Hawaii.
In other words the action should
have been brought by the attorney
1atnapn1 Nv fhnt 7Afyt fhn ShnrIrnn1
case-22 Hawaiian-is in the mind of
the court decisive, and it was so ruled.
Respondent her filed an answer
dated, October Is. 1920, which, in
general, sets up that respondent was
naturalized the 18th day of October,
in the year 1900; and that ever since
that time he has been and now is n
citizen of the United States.
The time this answer was filed, a
plea in bar was also filed alleging the
point that the matter had been previ-
ously adjudicated in previous quo
warranto proceedings had in which the
same question had been ruled upon by
this court. The decision in the pro
Ceedings referred to-there is no num-
Der on the copy filed here so l can't
give the numbers that the laws of
the Territory of Hawaii prescribe GER
tain qualifications for district magis-
trates, among other things providing
that the applicant for such position
shall have passed an examination to
practice law in the various district
courts of this Territory; prescribes an
educational qualification to hold the
said Office; and an applicant once hay
ing passed this examination is educa-
tionally qualified, and it is not ne
cessary to subsequently go through an
examination to establish a fact al
ready proven"
That was the only point that was
decided in the previous case and it
was the only point in fact raised by
the ~pleadings and, is in nowise, a bar
to this action.
Following the ruling on the plea in
bar, motion for a trial by jury was
made, and as to this point the Revised
Laws provide-Section 2272 and Sec
ton 2274-that quo warranto is a
matter at chambers and in which nc
jury can be had. 1t being further pro
vided-Section 2279-that demand for
trial by jury must come within ten
days after the matter was at issue.
In this case more than ten days had
elapsed and in view of the facts and
the law the motion for the demand for
a jury trial was denied.
Case Finally Set
The matter was then set for trial
December IS, 1920, and later, on mo
ton of respondent, continued to De
cember Is, 1920, Zr trial.
On the trial Nareof, evidence was
introduced on behalf of the petitioner
to the effect that petitioner is a citi
zen of the United States, the wneI
of real property in the County OF
Maui, a taxpayer and elector of the
County of Maui, Territory of Hawaii
Petitioner further introduced evi,
dence to the effect that the respond
ent w, A. Mckay is the district magis
trate of Waikiki, and that respondent
had registered as a voter, claiming
that he was a naturalized citizen; the
affidavit made at the time to which
the allnHad GENERALIZATION reGerS omit.