The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-11-22
MUST BRING SUIT IN THE HOME COURTS,

the affairs OF said corporation TO c. A. SprecS-
| els.
!, c. A. Spreekels is a son of the plaintiff. Claus
Spreckels, and was from the year 1878 till the
I year 1898 perfectly familiar with all the aIairs
OF said plaintiff, and with every fact ana CIR,
plaintiff of the title in fee to the Ahupuaa OF
Waikiki, and with all the Facts and things
done in relation thereto by said plaintiff, in
Guiding all transactions and relations between
/ him and the Hawaiian Commercial Company
| and the Hawaiian Commercial and Sugar Com
pany. G. A. Spreckels well knows, and at all
times has well known, that said 5000 acres of
said Ahupuaa which are brought in dispute
| are the property of this plaintiff. and that the
Hawaiian Commercial and Sugar Company as
not and never has had any right title
| thereto either in law or in equity, and has
never asserted or thought of asserting any
| claim thereto, until said CA. Spreckels OBJ
| tanned control of said company.
Nevertheless, C.. A. Spreckeis, in pursuance
| of systema tic plan which he has followed
| for years past to harass and annoy the plain
! tiff and for no other purpose, has lustlgated
! and caused the board OF directors OF said
| Hawaiian Commercial and Sugar Company to
authorize the action to be prosecuted against
| the plaintiff, and has caused said action TO be
brought in the courts OF the hawallan ISLANDS
where neither he nor any member OF the Doard
of directors of said Hawaiian Commerelai anu .ha
Sugar Company resides. and where none OF the
members of the former boards OF directors OF
said company who are still hvlng RESIDE,
and where the said corporation mas
neither its Office nor books nor records instead
of having the same broughtin the courts OF the
state of california. in which ali of said parties
reside, and in which said corporation mas us
Office books and records, in further pursuance
of said plan 10 annoy said plalntlf ana 10 pace
him at disadvantage in the maintenance OF
his defense to said action and the production
of witnesses to support the same.
The defendant ought not in equity ana goo9
conscience TO be permitted to MAINTAIN ana
continue its aforesaid action IN the courts OF
the republic OF Hawaii for the FOLLOWING req
sons among the many which might be sug-
gested. ,
/. The plaintiff and the defendant, as well as
the defendants, Russell j. MiIsoa, Mo9 SnLoTl
els and B. ]. Hofacker, are citizens OF the STATE
OF California.
2. The residence of all the parties who at any
time have acted as directors or ofheers OF Ihe
Hawaiian Commercial Company and the Ha-
waiian Commercial and Sugar Company, VINO
are now living, is the State OF Califo rnla.
Among these are Hermann Bendel, Hermann
Schussler, 81. L. Dodge, John D. SpEeckels, a.
B. Spreckels, William Babcoek and Antoine
Borel.
3. All books of account and records OF said
corporations and of the plaintiff and OF the
defendants and of all said persons are here in
the State OF California, and may here be COM
PEELED to be produced III court.
4. The testimony OF all said persons is nec-
essary and indispensable to prove some one
or more essential facts of the defense OF said
plaintiff to said bill OF complaint The pro-
duction in evidence of the records and books
OF account of said corporation, as well as those
of said plaintiff, is also necessary and 1ndis-
no process by which the attendance Of such
parties. or any OF them, as witnesses can be
secured before the courts OF the republic OF
Hawaii, nor is there any process by which the
production of said books or records, or any of
them, can be enforced before the courts. The
persons above named are all engaged In large
and important affairs, and even ii they could
be persuaded TO leave their business and
homes in this State TO go TO the
Hawaiian Islands they could only do SO with
great loss and inconvenience to themselves,
q nd
said documentary evidence, books and records,
would for a long time be kept out OF the lite,
and the places in which il is required to be
kept, and would be twice exposed 20 the perils
OF the sea, and the danger OF loss and mutila-
ton while so improperly without the iurisdic-
ton of this State.
There is no process by which the said parties
or any OF them, could be compelled to give
their dispositions in this State to be used in the
courts OF said republic OF Hawaii, nor by which
the production OF said documentary evidence,
books and records could be enforced before any
officer OF this State TO be similarly used.
5. The bill of complaint alleges that certain
agreements and contracts were entered into
between plaintiff and other persons, 10 wit:
Hermann Schussler. Hermann Bendel, F. f.
Low md W. F. Babcock, and said bill OF COM
plant is largely based upon the alleged duties
and obligations springing from said alleged
agreements and contracts All OF said alleged
agreements and contracts, ii made at all, were
made within the State of California. The obi
cations If any, arising under them, arise, II al
all, and must be escertalned and measured by
the laws OF said State IS interpreted by its
courts; and the plaintiff has clear, legal
and equitable right TO have said agree
ments and contracts. ii they exist, ascertalned
and measured by this standard. Those laws,
and the construction which the courts OF tn,s
State have placed upon them, II defendant is
permitted to proceed in his said action IN the
courts OF the Hawaiian Islands, will have 10 De
proved as facts before said courts, Tor said
courts cannot take judicial cogniZance thereof
To establish by competent evidence in such
foreign and distant tribunal, the laws and de-
eisions OF this State would be an undressing
involved in great doubt and uncertainty,
jeopardizing the legal and equitable rights OF
said plaintiff.
g. The bill of complaint alleges that certain
fduciary relations existed between the plain
tiff and the Hawaiian Commercial Company
and the Hawaiian Commercial and Sugar Com
pany, arising both from express trusts created
by contract, and implied trusts arising from
positions alleged TO have been occupied by
plaintiff toward said corporation, and said Dill
of complaint is largely based upon the alleged
duties and obligations of said plaintiff spring
ing from said fiduciary relations. The existence.
nature and extent OF said fiduciary relations,
if any existed are to be determined by he
laws of this State as interpreted by its courts:
matters are different from those OF this State,
and ii defendant is permitted to proceed in
such action in said republic. plaintiffs rights
under the laws of this State viii be impaired.
If not wholly destroyed.
z. The prosecution of said action in the
courts of the republic of Hawaii foreign
to eyade the laws of the State OF its own crea-
ton and residence, to wit, OF this State. and to
deprive the plaintiff of the benefit OF said laws
TO which he is justly entitled.
s. BY reason of their remoteneSs from the
place OF residence OF the parties and the
sources of evidence, both oral and docu-
mentary, it is impossible for the courts OF the
republic of Hawaii, learned. able and just
though they are, TO do complete justice be-
tween the parties, but the matters in contro-
versy can be adjusted and the ends of justice
fully attained in the courts of this State in
manner both just economical and expeditions
9. The action brought by the defendant here
in the courts OF the Hawaiian republic as
above stated, was brought under the instiga-
ton OF one who for years has pursued q
systematic plan OF annoying, vexing and har-
assing the plaintiff, and has been instituted
through his instigation for no other purpose
than that OF annoying, yexing and harassing
him.
10. For more than twelve years last past the
defendant has had full knowledge of all
facts and circumstances upon which it now
seeks TO base its alleged equitable right; and
during all OF said years and at all times men
toned i'll its said bill OF complaint the defend
ant has consented to and aequiesced in each
and all the deeds of plaintiff in the premises
ana II 1t ever had cause of complaint against
the plaintiff, which the plaintiff denies. 1t has
now In equity and good conscience, lost the
right TO enfOrye that right nv rosSop nf