The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1899-10-24
uotiol 10 Dissolve Hawaiian
qranvays Injunction
Is ARGUED AND SUBMITTED
paul Nsumann's Severe Structures
on southvviok-Judgs Perry Re.
serves HE Usoieion.
(From Saturdays Daily.)

ments on the motion Of the Hawaiian
Tramways Company to dissolve the
injunction obtained in the suit Of T. s.
Southwick.
Arguing against the motion, Mr.. Nc
Clanahan relied on strict construc-
sion Of the law in his clients favor,
claiming that the defendant company
had admitted in the afYidavit Of w. H.
Pain that 1t was about to do the very
things which plaintiff sought to en-
join 1t from doing, and that 1t should
BIZ compelled to answer the complaint
instead Of trying to wriggle out Of its
difficulties by a motion to dismiss the
injunction. He begged the court to
take into consideration the fact that II
the Injunction was dissolved money
would be spent freely every day by the
Tramways Company in a manner which
the plaintiff believed would be simply
wasted and that his pecuniary inter-
.ests would suffer.
In support Of the motion Paul Neu-
mann was quite severe in his strict
ures on the plaintiff. T. 8. Southwick,
whom he characterized as merely a
plaintiff In disguise. the servant and
clerk of w. r. Castle, whom he be-
lieved had furnished Southwick the
money to pay for the stock he claimed
TO own in the company. Warming to
his subject, Mr.. Neumann said, in sub
stance:
IF the Rapid Transit desires to
fight this matter out with us why do
they not come out in the open instead
of in an underhand way. All of our
acts in laying double track have been
open and above board, and the public
has had full knowledge Of them
through the daily newspapers.
I'VE deny that Southwick is stock
holder in our company for the reason
that 1t is a physical impossibility for
anyone purchasing stock in Honolulu
to have 1t transferred on the books of
the company in London on the follow
ing day. In arguing the case counsel
on the other side forget that they are
representing T. s. Southwick. a stock
holder in our company. but talk all
the time in the interests of the Rapid
Transit Company. l do not for one
moment imagine that this court will
sustain their pretense that We are in
juring the interests of Southwick.
Nothing has been advanced to sustain
the contention that Southwick has
sustained injury. II We have done any
wrong Is 1t not for the Government to
stop us and not Southwick, especially
when every act we have done has been
with the knowledge and consent of the
Executive Council?
What possible injury can We have
done to a stakeholder of twelve hours
only on his own showing? No, it is
not Southwick who has been injured,
but the very company which, by Dor
rowing a few T rails from the Oahu
Railway, has committed the very Of
fence Of which we are now accused.
They thought we would enjoin them
from laying those little rails, but we
didn't; we simply laid back and
.smiled.
with regard to the afidavits. Mr..
Southwick has sworn to one and Mr..
Pain to another. Is there any particu-
lar odor of sanctity about Southwick
that his affidavit, a 12-hour stockhold-
er's affidavit should be preferred to
that of w. H. Pain?
Again, no enterprise should be en-
joined by any court unless clear
prima facie case of wrongdoing has
been made out. This plaintiff buys into
a corporation for the sole purpose OF
hampering 1t. 1t Is one of the grossesi
cases Of deceit ever perpetrated in any
court Why doesn't the Rapid Transit
of masQuerading behind the name Of
t.lr L. atA Ho,, hAvp o.
maintain It than him for they may bt
injured by us. The fact that the Rapit
Transit is behind Southwick in this
case appears on the surface and 1t bub
bles up In every place. This 10 a shan
suit from beginning to end. II is but I
fiimsy pretext of the worst kind. NJ
one can make me believe that an!
court can ever be brought to exercise
its highest powers In favor man witt
is at best humbug. No, your Honor
IL Is not for Mr.. Southwick to ask u
40 he yirtuous. His whole suit Ii de
signed for the purpose OF misleading
and prejudicing the Court against us.
Coming to the question OF the us
of electricity about which counsel ha
made 40 much ado. Mr.. Pain ha
sworn that II Ia not our present inten
lion to do so. but will 90 further ant
say that we will use II when the prope
time comes whether the Rapid Transi
Company likes II or not. but We vii
not use II without the sanction OF tn
Government and the courts. When III
lime comes for US 10 use electricity
will be used, Mr.. Castles clerk. MI
w. u. Castle himself, Mr., ballentyns
the Rapid Transit Company and Nj
Mechanism 10 the contrary notwiil
standing
I'm conclusion, ! wish 10 say empha
ilnally thai Wa have attempted noil
ing but what 10 within the scope NJ u,
powers, viii even SAY further ol
duty, for II ID our duty "a pisa N
bssl possible service 20 the publlo'
n rlgit that whom xs prepare a. mai
nave that will dlr.ciiy benefit ~
public w relisvins the presen, 'oi