Case: HONOLULU RAPID TRANSIT COMPANY, LIMITED, v. CHARLES T. WILDER, TAX ASSESSOR FOR THE FIRST TAXATION DIVISION OF THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII
Abbreviation: Honolulu Rapid Transit Co. v. Wilder
Court: Supreme Court of the Territory of Hawaii
Jurisdiction: Hawaii
Decision Date: 1929-02-05
Docket Number: No. 1848
Citation: 30 Haw. 795
Volume: 30
Reporter: Hawaii Reports
Parties: HONOLULU RAPID TRANSIT COMPANY, LIMITED, v. CHARLES T. WILDER, TAX ASSESSOR FOR THE FIRST TAXATION DIVISION OF THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII.
Pages: 795–796

HONOLULU RAPID TRANSIT COMPANY, LIMITED, v. CHARLES T. WILDER, TAX ASSESSOR FOR THE FIRST TAXATION DIVISION OF THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII.
No. 1848.
Filed January 11, 1929.
Decided February 5, 1929.
Perry, C. J., Banks and Parsons, JJ.

Per Curiam.
This is a petition for rehearing. It is based on five grounds, the first ground being that counsel neglected to call the court’s attention to the case of Rapid Transit Co. v. Assessor, 18 Haw. 15. This case was never-' theless considered by us before the original opinion was written. We did not think then nor do we now think it is opposed to the conclusion we reached. One of the other grounds is that we overlooked the committee report on Act 227, L. 1925, in Senate Journal 1925, p. 721. This report was not overlooked but was duly considered and found to be insufficient to justify a different conclusion from that which we reached. Another ground is that we inadvertently ruled that the terms of the franchise of the taxpayer were to be determined as of January, 1928, when in fact the terms of the .taxpayer’s franchise were determined when Act 227, L. 1925, went into effect. This ground we think is without merit. The fourth ground is that the court inadvertently ruled that the action of the public utilities commission changed the terms of the franchise of the taxpayer. We made no such ruling. The last ground is that we misapplied the case of Bell's Gap R. R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 134 U. S. 232, to the instant case. With due deference to counsels’ opinion we entertain a. different view of the Bell's Gap case.
Robertson & Oastle and J. G. Anthony for the petition.
The petition is denied, without argument, under the rule. :