The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1885-12-19
REMARKABLY CASE.
Improper Conduct by Solicitors Cen
sured by Judge Preston.
In the Supreme Court eli the Hawaiian
lsIaMdS-An Equity.

IN NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. PRESTON, J.
THE ONoMEA SUGAR Co.
VS..
HERBERT G.. AUSTIN AND
FRANKLIN III. AUSTIN.
On the 30th of October last the plaintiffs
filed their bill of complaint, alleging that
the defendants were respectively the man
ager and luna of the Onomea Plantation,
and that they had been removed by the
Directors OF the Company, but they refused
to deliver up possession, and were imprOp-
erly dealing with the property of the Com
pany, and were committing waste, and
praying for an injunction against the de-
PENDANTS to restrain them interfering with
the OnOmea Plantation until the further
order of the Court, and to command them
to at once deliver up to the plaintiffs all
books of accounts, contracts and other
property of the plaintiff.
An injunction was thereupon issued,
which was served on the 22d of October,
whereby the defendants were ordered and
enjoined to absolutely desist from doing
any act or acts as manager or Overseer of
said Onomea Plantation, and not in any
way to interfere with the management and
control of said plantation by Joseph o.
Carter President, and Peter G. Jones, Sec
rotary, of said Company, or of any person
appointed by or acting under them, and
were commanded to deliver to said officers
of said Company or to their agent all books
of account, contracts and other property
belonging to said corporation.
On the 2lst of October a motion was filed
on behalf of the defendants 10 dissolve the
injunction.
This motion came on for hearing before
me on the 9th, and was adjourned until
the 30th, on which day the motion was ar
gued by Mr.. c. w. Ashford and Mr.. Thurs
ton on behalf of the defendants, and Mr..
Hatch OH behalf of plaintiffs, which motion
was dismissed on the Sd November.
On the 81 November counsel for plant
ifs moved for an order for the defendants
to show cause why they should not be adj
judged in contempt and in support read
an affidavit by J. o. Carter, based upon a
letter received from Mr.. RowelI the newly
appointed manager of the company. The
Court held that the evidence before it was
not sufficient, and the hearing was sus-
pended until again called up
On the 24th November the application
the manager, and Mr.. c. C. Webb book
keeper of the plantation, were filed i'll sup
port
Mr.. Rowell in his affidavit says:
II was present when the injunction is
sued in the suit of the OnOmea Sugar Com
panv against Herbert e. Austin and Frank
/ lin H. Austin was served upon said H. G..
! Austin, on the 23d day Of October last III
! the town OF Hilo; that on the same day /
| went in company with said Herbert c..
| Austin to the OnOmea plantation; that
! l afterwards saw Il copy of said injunction
! in the hands of said Franklin II. Austin,
and Herbert c. Austin said they desired to
talk over and consider the matter until the
next morning, when they would tell me
what they would do; that | spent the night
| at said plantation, and the next morning
that upon the next morning said Herbert
! c. Austin and Franklin II. Austin told me
! that they had decided not to turn over said
premises to me; that they considered said
injunction was snap judgment, and
! thought that the same would be dissolved
/ at once when il came To the notice of their
counsel; that they had previously been adj
vised that it was of Importance for them
to keep possession OF said premises; and
that they would not then allow me to take
charge of the place; that nrged them to
! obey the process OF the Court, and told
them that if the injunction should be dis
solved that the premises would be restored
to their possession; that they replied thai
they preferred to take the chance of being
punished for contempt rather than do any
thing to prejudice their case; that the pun
ishment would probably be a fine, and thai
I thew would take the chance of personal in
convenience for the benefit of the family
that both said Herbert c. and Franklin H
I Austin assented to- said remarks; that said
statements were made by one of them in
the presence of the other; that from the
said time until the 5th day of November
instant, they prevented me from taking
charge of said premises; that on the 18th
day OF November, instant, l proceeded tC
said plantation in company with W. w
| GOOdale, who had been appointed to sue
ceed me a. manager; that on the next day
said premises were turned over to the
| possession of said GOodale and myself
/ that the bOOkkeeper of said plantation had
sent me note on the same day saying
they would require two thousand dollars
($2 ,O0O) to pay off the men on the following
Saturday; that inquired of said Frank
| lin Ii. Austin how it was they were so short
of cash, az he had told me on the day
previous that they had enough money on
! hand all but $500 for said purpose; that he
replied that Herbert c. Austin, acting