The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1899-10-21
NOT DECIDED YET.
Motion 70 Dissolve Hawaiian
TIamVayS IQillCtiOl
Is ARGUED AND SUBMITTED
Paul Neumann's Severe Structures
on Southwick-JudssP Perry Re-
serves His Decision

The time of Judge Perry was taken
up most of yesterday in hearing argu-
ments on the motion OF the Hawaiian
Company to dissolve the
injunction obtained in the suit OF T. 5.
Arguing against the motion, Mr.. Nc |
Clanahan relied on a strict construc- |
ton OF the law in his clients favor. |
claiming that the defendant company
had admitted in the affidavit of W. II. |
Pain that IL was about to- do the very
things which plaintiff sought to- en-
join ii from doing. and that IL should
be compelled to answer the complaint
instead OF trying to- wriggle out of its
difficulties by n motion to dismiss the
injunction. He begged the court to-
take into consideration the fact that IL
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. +. 5. Southwick.
whom he characterized as merely a
plaintiff in disguise. the servant and
clerk of w. X. 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. AL of our
acts in laying n double track nave been
open and above board. and the public
has had full knowledge OF them
through the daily newspapers.
I'VE deny that Southwick Is n stock
holder in our company for the reason
that il is a physical impossibility for
anyone purchasing stock in Honolulu
| to have Ii 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. 1 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. If we have done any
wrong is It 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 stockholder OF twelve hours
only on his own showing? No. IL Is
not Southwick who has. been injured
but the very company which. by bor-
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 tC
that of W. II. Pain?
Again, no enterprise should be en-
Joined by any court unless a cleal
prima facie case OF wrongdoing ha:
been made out. This plaintiff buys intC
a corporation for the sole purpose oi
hampering II. 1t Is one of the crosses
cases OF deceit ever perpetrated in AM
court. Why doesn't the Rapid Transi
Company commence this suit insteaC
OF masquerading behind the name o
Southwick? II is easier for them Il
maintain ii than him for they may b'
injured by us. The fact that the Rapi'
Transit is behind Southwick in tht!
case appears on the surface and II bub
bles up in every place. This Is shan
suit from beginning to end. II Is but !
fiimsy pretext OF the worst kind. NJ
one can make me believe that an!
court can ever be brought to eXercis'
its highest powers in favor n man wh'
is at best n humbug. No. your Honor
il is not for Mr.. Southwick to ask u
to be virtuous. His whole suit Is de
signed for the purpose OF misleadin.
and prejudicing the Court against us.
Coming TO the question OF the US
of electricity about which counsel hai