The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1899-10-28


II did not lie in the power OF the /
San Francisco subscribers as a matter |
of right to- object 20 the proposed in
crease OF the capital stock OF the COM |
pany for the purpose indicated. The
court had deCreed that Nr. Dilliug-
hams $1,000. 900 worth OF stock should
be turned over TO the san Francisco
and II this decree was car
ried out IL would be all that they could
ask for. as there - no injunction
against the company restraining them
from increasing their capital stock.
MAGoON'S SUGGESTIONS UNTEN-
ABLE.
That as TO Mr.. Magoon's proposition
to issue shares pro rata to- present
stockholders, he would say that unless
The San Francisco subscribers were
recognized and allowed their pro rata
he should Immediately procure an in
junction stopping the issue OF the
shares; while II the Honolulu subsCri-
bers were not recognized they would
doubtless do the same. Moreover. the
company could not now sell the delin-
quent shares, as proposed by Mr.. Ma
COON, because there were thiTty-three
injunctions prohibiting IL.
The company was completely
blocked from pursuing either course
suggested by Mr.. Magoon.
He stated further that personally rs
n stakeholder OF tue Waialua AgriCul-
tural Company he was in favor OF
compromise along the lines suggested.
for he saw the Importance OF removing
the many obstacles now blocking the
early development OF the company's
property; that IL was in the interest OF
the company to- speedily take advan-
tage of the now favorable conditions of
the sugar market.
II the company was TO be hampered
and embarrassed by long and trouble
some litigation. by the time II was
ended sugar stock investments might
not be held in the same favor rs to-
day and the holders OF the stock would
lose through this litigation the orpor-
tunity of realizing the present high
prices OF sugar and sugar stock.
He especially emphasized the fact
that sugar stocks would reach the
climax OF desirable investment within
the next few years and that nothing
should be put In the way OF this COM
pany that might retard the full. free
and early development OF its property.
That the settlement OF the present
litigation in the manner proposed
init OF a speedy development OF the
property. he was certain.
r. NJ. HATCH.
a stakeholder himself and the at
torney for the company and Dilling-
ham in the pending litigation. stated
that from remarks made by Mr.. Ma
COON he did not think the latter was
fully aware OF the status OF the pres
ent litigation.
WAIALUA COMPANY VITALITY IN
NOLNED.
The controversy which Is pending
in the courts is not a matter solely be-
tween Messrs. J. II. Soper and l. :.
Valentine on the one part and l.. T..
Dillingham; on the other part. The
Waialua Agricultural Company. Limit
ed. is a party and "A party In interest.
This is one of the results which follow
from Judge Perry's decision. Judge
Perry has held that the persons In Ho-
nolulu who claim to ne entitled To the
shares for which MIR. Dillingham; sub
sCribed. viz: the 10000 shares in dis
pute. do not hold them under sale
from Mr.. Dillingham;. The fact OF n
sale was alleged and relied upon as one
ground OF defense. Judge Perry has
distinctly held that no sale took place
from Mr.. Dillingham; to these parties.
These persons appear on the stock
books OF the WaIalua Agricultural
Company. Limited. as stockholders. II
they do not hold by purchase from Mr..
Dillingham; they hold as subscribers. II
must follow therefore that the Waialua
Agricultural Company. Limited. has
incurred liability to- these persons by
accepting their subscriptions and en-
tering their names on their stock books
as members of the corporation. The
decision rendered holds that these Ho-
nolulu subscribers. claiming under
MIR. Dillingham;, cannot have the
shares to which they lay claim. The
questions which will arise between
them and the waialua Agricultural
Company. Limited, have not been set
tied by this decision: but IL follows
from the reasoning of the decision that
they have equities. and probably very
strong ones against the waialua Agri-
cultural Company. IL is plain. there
fore, that the waialua Agricultural
Company has n distinct interest to- OBJ
tain n settlement OF all these ques-
tons. Its position is not simply that
OF a disinterested observer.
COMPROMISE IN INTEREST OF
ALL.
/ submit that the stockholders who
hold paid up shares. and the class who
derived their shares from Messrs. Cas-
tie & Cooke. are also directly interest
ed In bringing about a speedy termi-
nation OF the litigation. As / look At
1t, their loss in case the capital is now
increased and they do not receive any
Of the new shares will not be any
where near as great as the loss which
will result from the depreciation of
their shares in case this litigation con-
tinues for an indefinite period. as It
bids fair to. Nothing but the termina-
ton Of all these suits will give the
stock an opportunity to reach its real
value in the market. The longer the
litigation continues the greater the de-
probation will be.
MR.. ENA CONVINCED.