The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1883-05-16
5alraiialt 6azette.
WEDNESDAY, MAY 10. lsss.
Supreme Court of the Hawaiian Islands
In Equity.
Thu HAWAIIAN BELL TELEPHONE 20. vs.
THE OR1ENTAL TELEPHONE Co.,
(LDurED) f. P. ADAMS.
Before hs ChaHcsRor.-OpiHi0a.

counsel.
L-That June Il, ISL, sos shares of the
stock Of the Hawaiian Bell Telephone Co.
were issued in the name Of the Oriental Tele-
phone Company (limited) Of London, the
certificate of said shares being signed by $. &.
Wilder then President and c. o. Berger,
| Secretary Of the said Hawaiian Bell Telephone
Co., and being now in the possession Of the
defendant E. P. Adams as agent Of the Orien-
tai Telephone Co. (This averment is admitted
| in the answer.
| 2.-That IS of said shares were paid for
and $50 OF them were issued wholly without
consideration and by fraud on the part Of the
said Oriental Telephone Co. (The answer
denies this averment).
| 3.-That in February lssO, list Of sub
scribers had been obtained by said Berger for
the purpose Of forming a Telephone Co. (The
answer neither admits nor denies this, but
leaves it to be proved by the PLAINTIFF that
in October 1850, before obtaining a charter Of
incorporation, the Oriental Bell Telephone Co.
of Boston, through its agent Samuel Hubbard
represented to the individuals now forming
the Hawaiian Bell Telephone Co. that the said
Oriental Bell Telephone Co. held patents upon
| the telephone instruments, and that none Of
said instruments could be manufactured
bought or used without the consent Of said
Oriental Bell Telephone Co., and that said
| (Oriental Bell Telephone Co. had the sole and
| exclusive right to dispose Of the same, and
\ that It would be impossible for a company to
engage in the telephone business in Honolulu
without the consent Of said Oriental Bell Tele-
phone Co. THE answer denies this allega-
toni. That after His Majesty in Privy Coun-
/ Gil had decided to grant a charter Of incorpor-
alton 10 the Hawaiian Bell Telephone Co.,
said Hubbard, Nov %, lssO, on behalf OF said
Oriental Bell Telephone Co reiterated the
statements above alleged as to the rights and
powers Of said Oriental Bell Telephone Co. at
meeting Of the individuals who had peti-
toned for said charter and TO whom the same
was afterwards granted. 1.-THE answer denies
this allegaton).
That said Hubbard at said meeting
offered that if $50 shares Of the Hawaiian
Bell Telephone Co. should be issued
to the said (Oriental Bell Telephone
| Co.. it would grant TO the Hawaiian Bell
| Telephone Co., the sole right TO use telephone
instruments in the Hawaiian Islands and
would furnish and supply telephone instru-
ments to the Hawaiian Bell Telephone Co. and
would make concessions TO said (H9waiian
Bell Telepbone) Co. Of rights and privileges
belonging 70 and exclusively possessed by
said Oriental Bell Telephone Co. and would
prevent all persons other than the Hawaiian
Bell Telephone Co. from using in the Hawaiian
Islands or importing therein any telephone in
struments or apparatus. THE answer denies
information or belief Of this avermcnt.)
5.-That the Hawaiian Bell Telephone Co.
believing said representatives and relying
upon the ability Of said Oriental Bell Tele-
phone Co. to fulfill and make good all Of the
promises and undertakings made and assumed
kr- +bprr ulsovo o11awaT Nj in, gouEfAarn
ton that said Oriental Bell Telephone Co.
could and would do so, agreed to issue to
said Oriental Bell Telephone Co. $50 shares Of
the capital stock Of said Hawaiian Bell Tele-
phone Co. and relying, etc, as above, etc. also
erected lines Of telephone wires in said Homo
lulu and made large expenditures Of money in
SO doing. (The answer denies this averment).
6.-That June Il, ISL, while H. A. Wide
mann, President Of the Hawaiian Bell Tele-
phone Go. was absent from this country, said
j.. P. Adams, acting agent Of the Oriental
Telephone Co. limited, persuaded and induced
5. G. Wilder at that time Nice-President Of the
Hawaiian Bell Telephone Go. to issue said $50
shares of the capital stock Of said (Hawaiian
Bell Telephone Coz. That said 5. G. Wilder
was ignorant of the falsity of the representa-
tons made by said Oriental Bell Telephone
Co. to the complainant and caused said shares
to be issued believing said defendant was en-
titled 10 the same. That said i. p Adams
caused said stock to be issued in the name of
the Oriental Telephone Co. limited, represent
ing that said Oriental Bell Telephone Co. had
become merged in said Oriental Telephone Co.
and that the latter had full knowledge Of the
representation made by said Oriental Bell
Telephone Co. to the Co. complainant, and
had assumed all the obligations and under
standings above set forth and made 10 the Go.
complainant by the Oriental Bell Telephone
Co. (The answer denies the above avermeuts
andl ayers that Wilder caused said sos shares
TO be issued to said Oriental Telephone Co.
limited, believing the latter Co. to be entitled
to the same and not by reason Of any false
representations or any representations Of
whose truth or falsity lie was ignorant; and
admits that Adams caused said stock 10 be
issued in the name Of the Oriental Telephone
Co. limited, representing that said
Oriental Bell Telephone Co. had become
merged in said Oriental Telephone Co. limited,
but denies that he represented that the latter
Co. had full knowledge or any knowledge Of
the representations made as in said bill Of
complaint alleged, by said Oriental Bell Tele-
phone Co. to the Co. complainant or had as
sumed the obligations and undertakings in
said bill Of complaint set forth.)
That on or about January lss2, the Co.
complainant discovered that the representa-
lions made to it by said Oriental Bell Tele
phone Co. were wholly false: that said
(Onental Bell Telephony Co. had no cxclu-
sive rights nor any rights in regards to the
telephone in the Hawaiian Islands that the
concessions granted by said Co. to the Co.
complainant were wholly illusory and fraudu-
lent and that telephone instruments manufac-
tured in the United States were imported into
this country and sold openly to any person
desiring to purchase the same That said
Oriental Telephone Co. limited, when called
upon by the Co. complainant 10 protect them
in their exclusive rights to use and sci, tele-
phones in the Hawaiian Islands Acknowledged
that 1t was unable to do SO. (Ihe answer
denies this averment specifically.
Shat said Berger the said secretary was
unwilling 10 issue said shares in the name Of
the Oriental Telephone TO. as be had no
authoritative notice of any transfer Of said
shares by said Oriental Bell Telephone Co.
and he signed said certificate only upon the
express direction Of said Nice-President upon
the threat Of being removed from his office if
he refused 10 do SO.
THE answer denies tins avermont and AYERS
that Berger delayed issue Of sos shares solely
because Of his claim that he was entitled to
receive in consideration OF his having obtained
said subscriptions, certain paid up shares in
the Co.'S complainant and defendant, which
shares he has since received as Of the value Of
SSiO).
9.-Tlat said Oriental Bell Telephone Co.
and said Hubbard lat the time Of making the
representations and promises above set forth
well knew that the same were false, and that
they were unable to fulfil or perform the same
and that said Oriental Telephone Co. at the
time said shares were issued to it, well knew
the promises and undertakings of said Orien-
tai Bell Telephone Co. above alleged, and that
the same could not be performed and that the
same were false and fraudulent That said
Z. 2. Adams has been requested to surrender
said certificates for cancellation so far as said
$50 shares are concerned and has been
rendered a new certificate for said IS shares.
but he refuses to surrender or receive the
same. (The answer admits said request to
surrender, but denies said tender, and denies
the other averments).
The bill pTays for process, that defendant |
lie ordered to deliver said $50 shares for can |
collation. and that said Adams be enioined |
from disposing OF said certificate Of shares, /
for costs and general relief.
The answers further AYERS that the promises |
alleged in the bill to have been made by said /
Hubbard were beyond his power to make, and
i made were not binding at law or in equity |
upon the Co. defendant; that the Co. COM
plainant hath no right or cause Of action
against these defendants by reason Of any,
hing contained in said bill: also that the
Of the 20. complainant well knew
al the power and authority of said Hubbard
tho r,rarpigaz aud fhaf he rsS+bgr /