The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1885-12-19

Franklin II. Austin had drawn S6OO Tor his /
damages for the same cause; that he then |
read to me a passage in a letter advising
them to pursue that course; that this
conversation was on the same day repeated /
in the presence of said Herbert c. Austin
and said Goodale, and said passage of said
letter read to Goodale; that said Herbert
c. Austin then assented to this statement
made by said Franklin H. Austin, or re-
peated the substance of said statement
himself. WIN. E. RowELL.
Subscribed and sworn to this 10Th day of
November, 1885, before me,
HENRY r. Poor,
Second Deputy Clerk.
MI Cyprian c. Webb deposes:
Il, Cyprian c. Webb, of Onomea, Island
of Hawaii, being duly sworn, depoSe and
say: That l am the bOOkkeeper of the
Onomea Sugar Company, in charge of the
books of said Company at its plantation, at
said 0nomea; that Herbert c. Austin, late
manager of said plantation, on the 5th day
of November, 1885, drew from the funds of
said Company, in his possession, the sum
of one thousand dollars for his own use,
and claimed to be entitled to the same as
and unwarned and unauthorized dismissal
of himself from said position as manager;
that on the same day said Herbert c. Aus
tin directed me to make an entry of said
amount as drawn, as aforesaid which /
then and there did; that on the same day
said Herbert G.. Austin directed me to
maze an entry in said books of the sum of
six hundred dollars paid to F. II. Austin
as damages for summary, unwarned and
unauthorized Dismissal from the position
of Overseer upon said plantation formerly
held by him; that on the same day Herbert
c. Austin directed me to make a further
entry in said books of the sum of two
hundred dollars for legal expenses and
that on the 18th day of October last said
Herbert C.. Austin directed me to make
an entry in said books of the sum of
! five hundred dollars for legal expenses: all
of which entries were made by me at said
times, as will appear from the books of said
Company when produced.
CYPRIAN c. WEBB.
Subscribed and sworn to this 18th day of
! November 1884, before me,
HENRY +. Poor,
Second Deputy Clerk.
Upon which motion an order was made
| for the defendants to show cause on the
10Th instant why they should not be at
| tached for contempt.
The matter came up before me in this
| order on the 10th instant, Mr.. ThurstOn
and Mr.. C. w. Ashford appearing to show
cause, Mr.. Hatch in support of the order.
! An affidavit was filed by the defendants
and they were both orally examined.
| 1t was admitted that the defendants had
refused to deliver up possession and that
they were in contempt in that respect. In
mitigation, the defendants relied upon the
| advice of their counsel and upon the facts
stated in their affidavit.
As to the charge of apprOpriating the
several sums of 81, 900, 5000 and $500 they
denied that they did on the 9Th November
or ut any time subsequent to the service OF
the writ appropriate such sums, but on
| crOss-examination they admitted that the
entries in the plantation book under date
of November 9Th damages account
damage for summary and unwarned and
unauthorized dismissal, H. c. Austin
| 81 600; ditto, ]. H. Austin, $500; ex
| pense-legal EXPENSE, 5000 were made
| by Mr.. Webb at their instance and direc
ton, and claimed it was done as being {
| business form, and to show that 1--WE haC
! made honest deals"
On being pressed as to when the idea o.
| charging these sums for damages origin
ated in his mind, Herbert c. Austin sale
that he decided to make the charges OF
November 5th, and both defendants adj
mitted that a letter was received from thei
solicitors on the night of the 4th, and +. H
Austin admitted that he read portion o
the letter to Rowell.
The defendants admitted that quantit!
of sugar was sold on the Monday previous
to the service of the injunction, and they
claimed the proceeds as their property.
The defendants stated that the four let
tiers received from their solicitor and from
advice given by them they had reason t.
believe the injunction was not genuine
and that it would be dissolved Immediately
Before dealing with the case of these de
PENDANTS, deem it to be my duty to com
ment upon what 1 consider the highly i'm
proper conduct of the defendants solicitors
Messrs. Ashford & Ashford. say both, be
, cause presume they were both cognizan
, of what was being done.
, On the 9th of October a motion was hear
before me to dissolve in part an injunction
. issued in the suit-Staffor1 l.. Austin an
others VS.. c. Brewer IL Co. and others
> which motion was granted and a copy c
the minutes certified by the Deputy Clerk
and under the seal of the Court, was fol
warded by Mr.. P. C. Jones to the defend
/ ant II. c. Austin, with a letter infOrmin
r him of the fact of the injunction being dis
solved and that at n meeting of the d
1 rectOrs of the Company the defendant ha
! been removed as manager, and requestin
e him to deliver up possession to ROwen.
D On the Goth October Messrs. Ashford
| Ashford wrote a letter to the defendant:
: an extract from which is annexed to thei
/ affidavit this was after the receipt by tn
I defendants of the minutes of the Orde
2 made on the 9th.
= The extract is as follows:
= Honolulu, Oct. 20, 1885.
I MEssRs. AUsTIS-Dear Sirs; No
: the status is exactly as it was when "
; wrote you last. We are i'll possession. Sc
that it is maintained. As before suspected
! they may try and spring some trap, c
4 bogus order, or what not upon you; bu
o remember this, that no genuine order ca
- he Y,roy,,uJ,o tod yyitboT1t nI1r knowing II q