Vol. III, p. 200, sec 64. Items not necessary for current expenses. -The legislature may include in an appropriation bill passed at an extra session called under the provisions of this section an item which is not for necessary current expenses of carrying on the government," provided the matter covered by the appropriation is one for which an appropriation may rightfully be made. In re Queen's Hospital, (1904) 15 Hawaii 514. Section applied. - In In re Hawaiian Star Newspaper Assoc., (1904) 15 Hawaii 532, it appeared that the legislature failed at its regular session in 1903 to provide for the necessary expenses of the government for the succeeding biennial period. In its extra ses Vol. III, p. 197, sec. 55. Municipal corporations. corporations. The provisions of this section prohibiting the granting of private charters and special franchises do not apply to municipal corporations. Emmeluth 1. Oahu County, 908) 19 Hawaii 171. 66 License of social club. In view of the provision of section 55, nor shall spirituous or intoxicating liquors be sold except under such regulations and restrictions as the territorial legislature shall provide," a failure on the part of the legislature, if any there be, to provide for licenses for social clubs would not be a defense for selling without license as provided by law. Territory v. Pacific Club, (1905) 16 Hawaii 507. Garnishment of senators' salaries. A territorial statute by which the salary of a territorial senator is subject to garnishment for Vol. III, p. 198, sec. 56. eighteen months after the inauguration of sion, immediately after, it passed complete appropriation bills for the first six months of the biennial period and bills providing for a portion of the necessary expenses of the last eighteen months, but failed to provide for perhaps a half of the necessary expenses for those eighteen months on the supposition that those expenses would be borne by counties under an Act which turned out to be void. It was held that the expenses so unprovided for could be paid out of the last appropriation bills by the treasurer with the advice of the governor, under section 54, and that "the last appropriation bills," within the meaning of that section, were those of 1901 and not the six months bills of 1903. the payment of his debts is not in conflict Limitation of bonded indebtedness. — The For other cases under this section, see For cases under this section, see Castle v. Atkinson, (1905) 16 Hawaii 769; Territory v. McCandless, (1908) 18 Hawaii 616, 13 Ann. Cas. 795. Vol. III, p. 199, sec. 60. For a case under this section, see Fairchild v. Smith, (1903) 15 Hawaii 265. Vol. III, p. 199, sec. 63. For cases under this section, see Fairchild v. Smith, (1905) 15 Hawaii 265; Chandler r. Mott-Smith, (1908) 19 Hawaii 225. Vol. III, p. 200, sec. 64. This section was cited in Harris t. Cooper, (1902) 14 Hawaii 145; Matter of Contested Election, (1903) 15 Hawaii 325. 2 This section was cited in Ninomiya v. Kepoikai, (1903) 15 Hawaii 273. Vol. III, p. 202, sec. 73. This section was cited in In re Treasurer, (1904) 15 Hawaii 718; Lucweiko v. Pratt, (1907) 18 Hawaii 489. Vol. III, p. 203, sec. 75. Power of superintendent of public works over public lands. This section gives the superintendent of public works the same limited power of disposing of lands described in the proviso of section 262, R. L. of Hawaii, that the minister of the interior formerly Vol. III, p. 204, sec. 79. had, and controls section 73 of the same Act in that regard. Pratt v. Holloway, (1906) 17 Hawaii 539. This section was cited in McCandless v. Carter, (1907) 18 Hawaii 221. This section was cited in Kalanianaole v. Dimond, (1904) 15 Hawaii 486. -The power Power of judges in chambers. of the Hawaiian judges at chambers in proceedings not incident or ancillary to some cause pending before a court, conferred by the Hawaiian laws in force at the passage of the Organic Act, was preserved by the provision of section 81 of that Act, continuing in force the previous laws of Hawaii concerning "the civil courts and their jurisdiction and procedure." Carter v. Gear, (1905) 197 U. S. 348, 25 S. Ct. 491, 49 U. S. (L. ed.) 787, affirming (1904) 16 Hawaii 242. Misdemeanors committed on naval reservations. The territorial District Courts have Vol. III, p. 205, sec. 83. Grand and petit juries. See Territory v. Ng Kow, (1904) 15 Hawaii 602; Matter of Anin, (1906) 17 Hawaii 341. Vol. III, p. 206, sec. 84. Disqualification of judges. A judge is not disqualified under this section from sitting at the trial of a cause upon the facts in issue by reason of having sustained a demurrer to the plaintiff's declaration, which ruling was reversed by the appellate court. Matsumura v. Hawaii County, (1908) 19 Hawaii 197. A justice is not disqualified from sitting in a cause in which a corporation is a party taining a motion for a change of venue based on the ground that an impartial jury cannot be obtained in the circuit in which the action is pending. Spreckles . De Bolt, (1905) 16 Hawaii 476. An order remanding an equity cause to a judge of the Circuit Court with direction to receive evidence on an issue raised by amended pleadings filed after the close of the original hearing before said judge, and in support of Vol. III, p. 206, sec. 86. Record must show federal question. The failure of the record to show that any federal question was raised or suggested before the assignment of error in the federal Supreme Court precludes the maintenance of a writ of error from that court under this section to review a judgment of the Hawaiian Su Vol. III, p. 208, sec. 91. Sites for federal buildings. - The President is authorized, under this section, to take such of the public lands of Hawaii as he deems proper for the uses and purposes of the United States. Thus the Secretary of the Treasury may, if authorized by the President, accept a site for a federal building in Honolulu acquired in exchange for public land in Hawaii and assume the custody and control thereof, no objection thereto arising under section 3736, R. S. (6 Fed. Stat. Annot. 122), or otherwise. (1903) 24 Op. Atty.-Gen. 600. For other cases under this section, see Matter of Fukunaga, (1904) 16 Hawaii 306; Kapiolani . Territory, (1907) 18 Hawaii 460. For a case under this section, see Kapiolani v. Territory, (1907) 18 Hawaii 460. Vol. III, p. 210, sec. 100. Repeal. The provision of this section which authorizes the naturalization as citizens of the United States of persons who had resided in Hawaii for five years prior to its taking effect, without a previous declaration of intention, was repealed by the Naturalization Act of June 29, 1906, ch. 3592, 34 Stat. L. 596, 1909 Supp. Fed. Stat. Annot. 365, which establishes a uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States, repealing all inconsistent Acts, and requires a declaration of intention in all cases except of persons who have served in the army or navy. U. S. v. Rodiek, (C. C. A. 1908) 162 Fed. 469. Vol. X, p. 92, sec. 3. [Review by Supreme Court of the United States.] had previously contrary to decisions of the federal Supreme Court. Rubenstein v. Hackfeld, (1906) 18 Hawaii 126. The words amount involved," as used in this section, mean the actual amount in dispute between the parties. Thus where there was a dispute as to the proper assessment for purposes of taxation it was held that the amount involved was the taxes on the difference between the assessment as made and the assessment as claimed by the taxpayer. In re Ewa Plantation Co., (1908) 19 Hawaii 72. Final judgment. — The mere entry upon the minutes by the clerk of the Supreme Court of the territory of a decision overruling exceptions taken under Rev. Laws Hawaii 1905, sec. 1862 et seq., which did not bring up the whole case, and called upon the reviewing court merely to pass upon specific questions raised by the bill, was held not to make such decision a final judgment, so as to be subject to review in the federal Supreme Court. Cotton v. Hawaii, (1908) 211 U. S. 162, 29 S. Ct. 85, 53 U. S. (L. ed.) 131. non Not applicable to case determined before Act passed. In Notley v. Brown, (1908) 208 U. S. 438, 28 S. Ct. 385, 52 U. S. (L. ed.) 559, it was held that a writ of error directed on its face to the supposed judgment of the Supreme Court of the territory of Hawaii, disposing of exceptions on federal grounds prior to this Act enlarging the appellate jurisdiction of the federal Supreme Court over the territorial court, could be sustained on the theory that a final judgment in the case was not rendered until after the passage of that Act, when judgment on the verdict was entered in the trial court in connection with a nunc pro tunc entry, since such judgment must necessarily have been entered after the judgment which the writ sought to review. It was also held that jurisdiction of a writ of error directed, on its face, to a supposed judgment of the Supreme Court of the territory of Hawaii, disposing of exceptions on non-federal grounds prior to this Act, could be taken by treating the writ as addressed to a later judgment of that court, quashing a writ of error to the trial court, which judgment was not formally entered until long after the writ of error from the federal Supreme Court was sued out, where to regard the entry as relating back to the time when the opinion of the court was announced would, if the same rule be applied to the nunc pro tunc entry of the judgment of the trial court, require an affirmance of the judgment of the territorial Supreme Court on the ground that the writ of error to the trial court was not sued out in time. Effect of rehearing after passage of Act. A judgment of the Hawaiian Supreme Court did not become final before the enactment of the Act of March 3, 1905, and hence not reviewable in the federal Supreme Court under that Act, where, although the opinion was filed prior to that enactment, a petition for rehearing was duly filed and entertained by the court, and was not denied until after the passage of such statute. Bierce v. Waterhouse, (1911) 219 U. S. 320, 31 S. Ct. 241, 55 U. S. (L. ed.) 237. Compare Harrison v. Mogoon, (1907) 205 U. S. 501, 27 S. Ct. 577, 51 U. S. (L. ed.) 900. Order not appealed from. - The order of a territorial Supreme Court, reversing the order of the court below, granting a new trial, cannot be reviewed by the federal Supreme Court on a writ of error directed alone to a later decision in the same case, overruling exceptions, the record of which cannot be regarded as embracing the proceedings had below in respect to the matter of a new trial. Cotton v. Hawaii, (1908) 211 U. S. 162, 29 S. Ct. 85, 53 U. S. (L. ed.) 131. Jurisdictional amount. A writ of error from the Supreme Court of the United States to the Hawaiian Supreme Court, to review a judgment sustaining an assessment for taxation, will not lie under this section where the amount of the tax assessed is less than the jurisdictional amount prescribed by the section. Honolulu Rapid Transit, etc., Co. v. Wilder, (1908) 211 U. S. 145, 29 S. Ct. 46, 53 U. S. (L. ed.) 124. HOLIDAYS. Vol. III, p. 229. [Holidays with pay for government employees.] Not applicable to Philippine Islands. (1904) 25 Op. Atty.-Gen. 127. Vol. III, p. 230. [Holidays for Not applicable to Philippine Islands. per diem government employees.] (1904) 25 Op. Atty. Gen. 127. HOMICIDE. Vol. III, p. 231, sec. 5339. Crime committed on land ceded for federal building. In Battle v. U. S., (1908) 209 U. S. 36, 28 S. Ct. 422, 52 U. S. (L. ed.) 670, affirming (1907) 154 Fed. 540, it was held that a murder committed upon land bought by the United States in the city of Macon, Georgia, on which it was building a post office and courthouse, and over which the state had ceded jurisdiction, was made an offense against the United States, justiciable in the federal courts, this section making it a capital offense to commit murder within any fort, arsenal, dock yard, or in any other place or district of country under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. Crime in Honolulu harbor. A murder committed on board a ship lying in the harbor of Honolulu is cognizable in the District Court of the United States for the territory of Hawaii, under this section, as committed in a haven or arm of the sea within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States, and “out of the jurisdiction of any particular state." Wynne r. U. S., (1910) 217 U. S. 234, 30 S. Ct. 447, 54 U. S. (L. ed.) 748. Effect of Organic Act of Hawaii. There is nothing in the Hawaiian Organic Act (Act of April 30, 1900, ch. 339, 31 Stat. L. 141, 3 Fed. Stat. Annot. 186) which expressly or impliedly deprives the federal courts of their jurisdiction under section 5339, to punish a murder committed on board a ship lying in Indian reservation within a territory. — Jurisdiction over land not open for settlement. In Er p. Moran, (1906) 203 U. S. 105, 27 S. Ct. 25, 51 U. S. (L. ed.) 105, it was held that land now embraced within the limits of Comanche county, Oklahoma, had become part of that territory on Aug. 4, 1901, so as to make a murder committed therein on that date an offense against the territorial rather than the federal statutes, although the land had not then been opened for settlement. This section was cited in U. S. v. Hart, (1908) 162 Fed. 192. out malice, means a killing done wrong- beld not to be bad because it did not also |