*38OPINION OP

DISSENTING IN PART AND CONCURRING IN PART.

I concur in the majority opinion of this court disposing of the single new question presented by the appeals of respondent. The request addressed to the circuit judge by the respondent for permission to amend his return- so as to show that after the decision upon the reserved questions and before the peremptory writ had been issued others than petitioners had taken possession of, and were holding, the offices for which petitioners sought certificates of election was- properly denied by the circuit court.

The other questions involved in these appeals have been disposed of in Kumalae v. Kalauokalani (No. 1195) and Pacheco v. Kalauokalani (No. 1196), ante p. 1, where my views, to which I adhere, are expressed.

OPINION OP THE COURT BY

All of the questions presented by these appeals, with a single exception, were decided by us when the same cases were before us upon reserved questions and our opinion in those proceedings is here adopted as fully applicable to these appeals.

The new question here presented was raised by the refusal of the circuit judge to permit the respondent to amend his return so as to show that after the decision upon reserved questions and before the peremptory writ liad been issued others than petitioners had taken possession of and were holding the offices for which they sought certificates of election.

In an.oral decision rendered at the hearing we held that the action of the trial judge in refusing to allow the amendment constitutes no error and ordered the peremptory writs to issue from this court.

All that was said in our former opinion as to this not being a trial of the title to the office has direct application to this question and demonstrates that the circuit judge properly refused to grant respondent’s request for permission to amend his return so as to show that fact. Elisha Strong, Petitioner, 20 Pick. (Mass.) 484-496.

The orders appealed from are affirmed.