Smiddy v. City of Honolulu

31 Haw. 952, 1931 Haw. LEXIS 49
CourtHawaii Supreme Court
DecidedMay 13, 1931
DocketNo. 2003.
StatusPublished

This text of 31 Haw. 952 (Smiddy v. City of Honolulu) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hawaii Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Smiddy v. City of Honolulu, 31 Haw. 952, 1931 Haw. LEXIS 49 (haw 1931).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT BY

BANKS, J.

This is an action in assumpsit for the recovery of the reasonable value of services alleged to have been per *953 formed by plaintiff during the month of March, 1930, at the special instance of the defendant and for compensation for the use by the defendant of the plaintiff’s automobile during the said month of March. The court below, trying the case Aidthout a jury, rendered a decision in favor of the plaintiff on both causes of action and entered a judgment against the defendant for the sum of $415 plus interest and costs. The case is here on exceptions.

The only exception which we deem it necessary to consider is that relating to the court’s decision. The ground of this exception is that said decision is contrary to the laAV and the evidence and the weight of the evidence. The undisputed evidence sIioavs that in January, 1929, the plaintiff Avas duly appointed engineer of pumps of the City and County of Honolulu and that he continued Avithout interruption to discharge the duties of and to receive the salary that had been allotted to the office until March 1, 1930. On February 18, 1930, the board of supervisors abolished the salary that pertained to this office and directed that the work connected with it be taken over by the superintendent of the electric light department. The practical effect of this Avas to abolish the office itself, thus leaving the City and County of Honolulu Avithout the services of a chief engineer of pumps.

John H. Wilson, Avho Avas at that time mayor and concededly an experienced engineer, thought the action of the board was Avróng and that it Avas necessary to have the pumps under the constant supervision of a mechanical engineer, and he so informed the chief engineer of the City and County of Honolulu. Thereupon the plaintiff, with the approval of the mayor, was employed and admittedly performed the services which are the basis of the present action. Mayor Wilson, Avhose testimony tended more strongly to support the plaintiff’s claim than that of any *954 other Avitness, testified: “I Avant to say that Mr. Smiddy’s title as pump engineer may be a sort of a misnomer; that the real title should have been chief of pumps, chief of pumps, chief operator of pumps. We have about five different pumping stations, seAver pumping stations; some of them are not manned at all by anyone; they are supposed to operate automatically, but if they fail to operate a man must go there to start these pumps agoing. We have one at — tAvo at Waikiki, one at the public baths, another one at the — near Fort Armstrong there — I mean Fort De Russey, and no one mauka of Kalakaua, there is no one there at all, and inside of tAvo hours after these pumps stopped why the sewers would be up level Avith the floor, and unless someone goes there to start these pumps going Avhy you raise Cain in the AAdiole district, you would have sewers all over the block to the level of the street; and the other pump, it is a very large pump at the corner of RiArer and Queen street, plant cost about $200,000, and if that breaks down — they have two pumps there, one in case of emergency is swung in. They have an ordinary laborer there, that’s all, not a mechanic, just simply a laborer to send the alarm in to Mr. Smiddy if anything happens. Mr. Smiddy is the only mechanic in charge of those pumps. He has no assistant, he has no deputy. You take the fire department or the police department, if the head is gone you have someone remaining to do his duty for him, but in this case, it is the only position I knoAV in the city government that has no assistant; if the head is gone the Avhole thing stops; nobody there to take care of it. Noav, the pumping station here at RiArer and Queen, if no one is there for two hours — here you have a great big pipe, over 24 inches in diameter, and sometimes it will fill up and— fill up the pit and overflow out on the street; and the same condition happens doAvn here at Ala Moana road. *955 And I think the board of supervisors innocently attempted to abolish this job and they didn’t complete their action, and Mr. Allen came to me and says, ‘Here, Avhat are we going to do? Let these pumps go Avithout anyone?’ I says ‘It can’t be done, can’t be done,’ I says, ‘I think the board has made a mistake.’ * * * Mr. Allen is the head of the department, the seAver department, and Mr. Allen appoints Mr. Smiddy, who is the one — he is the one that has the right to appoint and discharge any person in that position; so I told Mr. Allen that immaterial what the board did, he could keep a man there whether it was Mr. Smiddy or someone else, it Avas immaterial; he could not allow that position to be Aracant; it had to be done, otherwise we would have seAvers all over the city,— that is, the streets. * * Q And do I understand your testimony to be, then, that, as mayor, at the beginning of the month of March you found there to exist an emergency such as you have described? A Yes, sir. Q Did I understand you correctly to say that the appointment of Mr. Smiddy because of this emergency met with your approval ? A Yes, sir.”

If the employment of plaintiff Avas authorized at all it Avas under section 1838, E. L. 1925, Avhich is as folloAVs: “No department, board or officer shall, under any circumstances, employ more subordinates than are authorized or provided for by the board of supervisors, or buy supplies beyond the sum furnished therefor by the supervisors, except in case of emergency approved by the mayor and within the limitations of this charter.” In the enactment of this section it Avas evidently the purpose of the legislature to limit the power of the authorities mentioned to employ subordinates, Avho had not already been authorized or provided for by the board of supervisors, to cases of emergency. If under any other circumstances any of *956 these authorities deemed it necessary to have additional help the manner of obtaining it was provided in section 1848, which is as follows: “When any officer, board or department shall require additional deputies, clerks, or employees, application shall be made to the mayor therefor, and upon such application the mayor shall make investigation as to the necessity for such additional assistance; and if he finds the same necessary he may recommend to the supervisors to authorize the appointment of such additional deputies, clerks or employees; and thereupon the supervisors, by an affirmative vote of not less than five members, may authorize such officer, board or department to make such appointments, and provide for the compensation of such appointees. Provided, however, that nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the head of any department recognized by the board of supervisors from using any appropriations provided by the board to be available for day laborers, informers, appraisers, or other temporary help as may be consistent with the purposes of such appropriations and the duties of such department head.”

It is shown by the testimony of the mayor that in his opinion it Avas necessary to have the pumps designated and described by him under the constant supervision of an experienced mechanical engineer. His opinion, however, is of no value as evidence unless the facts upon which it Avas predicated disclose the existence of an emergency. The question therefore is whether the facts related by him constitute an emergency.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

City of Atlanta v. Scott
111 S.E. 426 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1922)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
31 Haw. 952, 1931 Haw. LEXIS 49, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smiddy-v-city-of-honolulu-haw-1931.