The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1899-02-08
StTOlg Statements in AlSyST il
Stock Case.
BATTLE FOR WAIAlUA SHARES
Respondents mass Clear osniais'
Tho cornpany's Ssdo-sr.
DuIInsharn's Version.

The wasalul Agricultural Company /
has hlsd answers to plaintiffs ,. y
Hopper. McCaudicss Bros. and ,. n
McCandIcss in ths b.E suEar ssDck C2sc.
In shrsr answers defendants admit
that they arr duly incorporated utsh
Ia eapssal stock os s.. 80. coo.
The respondents dcay that any PTos-
arrsus was prepared. issued or pab-
.tsh~d by or with their cunsent. kuou s-
edge. authority or aequi~scenrr as al
.~xed in plaintiffs bills.
Respondents further ausuvg that
they have NO means 90 kaoutuz ahs'.h-
~ ar mo-, ssld dsscndaats. we'eh 4 Co.
lF,aucss and Tuck~r. John s. SsPer and
=. :. VaI-ntsn. did offer fsr sale tn Sac
city uf san Francisco any sseek in The
lWataIua Agricultural CO. dsi~ndan. ..
and therefore deny che same.
Respondents say thst ta so far aa
said wcIct a Co. J. %. SoPrF. =. :
lVaIrntsa.. or said Franets and Tuek~r
lartiuz as t1s.sr agents. had any author
gty to Offer for sale any shares Ia said
lrUmpauy. that the samc wss tn parse
lance of alleged authority claimed q
have ts~u alleged by said , s. S"gr'
and =. :. Valentine from defendant u
r. Dillingham;. and the r-sPDnden'.
lF. Dillingham;. says and thr "ehrr %
! spondeuta signing this answer "a
That they are Informed and believe an
o laIl~E~ upon Information and belle
! that sIr authority 90 every nature q
luuy tsu~ held by said Spprr ur by SAT
b IVa,sutsu~ from sasd Dillingham; hs
been legally terminated by said ia
s. bingham prior tu the time ut mzAit
p auv aIIrsed sale uf said stock ur ca
b Itakfnz uf any alleged subscription
& said stock. by said SgPer. Nalragtns. q
q by said Francis and Tucker aud .
p laIlcxcd contracts or options b~iwcr
q said parties had prior co that tim
% ceased to exist.
Respondents dcuy that che Wa5alu
. Horticultural sugar Co. o. tds.lttcss ua'
the watslua Agricultural Co. I-m!tss
Respondents deny uPoa iuformaiac
4 and belief that che plaintiffs v~rr =.
10 Iirfsrd hy welrh a. Co. and have
- means ot knowing that plaintiffs 80
solicited by uth.rs m.n,iorei ia ias
- bill.
a. R-spandrass admit chat P-ain.ii
.u ssaFd money to We5cl a. CO. az q
20 lsfrns uf making their alleged spbszr5
I,surs for stock. but deny that @
money was deposited tn payrnFsst
- Iauv aa4.sssrn~nt made oT aushDrtaf1
lths wa5alua Agricultural Company
1u by any persons hav5nE auY apta9sl
f1 represent jt. but that said payne
Wae a deposit as an earlier ssu-e
uu.reI hy said Defendant u = uils5t
et ham rrrauna1-y ua hts uNu lrha.ta
me is mnse fully sss uut h.ioa !a
F1 Iauawrs.
~ R~spur4lrats dFnv Ehas Ehe p-a-atl
upon making sEr alleged ers.ssrr5 s'taf
tp haram~ m~sabs-s % che wal8lgs Az
DE IsuTsurar Co. urua 5Es 5neo-ppfs q
u. Therefore FaE5-5r5 Co a delivery ~
~. Iaharra alleged Tp have her1 sl8s-fs.
for.
are The alleged EI.ssaF.a astD1s have
rE4 been accepted HV sas re pB14rrFf
Ia hss any PERSIA. corporation ur q
Ifsfa auEhuT.aFd Co arceps threas
ErsgunIr-rs further say thss -
'- leo che samF us raaesV.aE any rptacf 2
.uj ia.zErsHHa ~ srFt .D hFao4se share hE
BON ara su said company rEat tspaa t8c q
lr. aer.rs5Has Cog aI che shar~s uf st
had tsasa accepted and st ss beg.
-fr ansFr uf EhF gsesrBrtrEss fo Del.
mt sEs shares claimed by COMP sts1s
1at o. q. u5s55aElam dea5.s thar
.-r |1m1r-s uas paid go Ws.rh a. Co.
..- l4-ru-ut ut shares 5a che Waessga