The Hawaiian gazette., 1899-02-10

BATTLE FOR wAIAluA SHAatS
Respondents Make Clear penisls.
The comparys Side Mr..
Dllinsharn's Version.

MCCandless In the big sugar stock case.
In their answers defendants admit
thar they are duly incorporated with
a capital stock OF sS,5oO.ooO
The respondents deny that any pros
pectus was prepared, ISSUED or pub
lished by or with their consent, knowl-
edge, authority or acquiescence as al
legged In plaintiffs bills
Respondents further answer that
they have no means of knowing whcth-
er or not said defendants, WEIGH 4 Co,
Francis and Tucker. John II. Soper and
T.. S. Valentine did offer for sale In the
city of San Francisco any stock In the
Waialua Agricultural Co, defendant
and therefore deny the same.
Respondents say that in so far az
said WEIGH A Co. J. II. Soper. 4. s
Valentine, or said Francis and Tucker.
acting as their agents, had any author
lty 10 offer for sale any shares In said
ance of alleged authority claimed to
have been alleged by said J. II. Soper
and 4. 5. Valentine from defendant b.
+. Dillingham;. and the respondent ID.
+. Dillingham;, says and the other re-
spondents signing this answer say
that they are informed and believe and
allege upon information and belief,
that all authority OF every nature Al
any time held by said Sopsr or by said
Valentine from said Dillingham; had
been legally terminated by said Dill
lingham prior to the time of making
any alleged sale of said stock or the
taking of any alleged subscription OF
said stock. by said Soper, Valentine, or
by said Francis and Tucker; and all
alleged contracts or options between
said parties had prior TO that time
ceased TO exist.
| Respondents deny that the Waialua
Agricultural Sugar Co. is Identical with
the Waialua Agricultural Co., Limited
Respondents deny upon information
and belief that the plaintiffs were So
licited by Welch Il Co., and have NO
means OF knowing that plaintiffs were
solicited by others mentioned in their
bill
Respondents admit that plaintiff
paid money to Welch a. Co, at the
time OF making their alleged subscrip.
tons for stock, but deny that the
money was deposited In payment OF
any assessment made or authorized by
the Waialua Agricultural Company OF
by any persons having any authority
20 represent u, out that said paymen'
was deposit az an earlier time re-
CURED by said defendant H. +. Dining
nam personally on MS own Dehalf' o.
Is more tuily set out below In TN
answer.
Respondents deny that the plaintiff
upon making the alleged subscription
became members OF the Walalua Agrl
cultural GO. upon its INCORPORATION ans
therefore entitled 10 delivery OF I'M
shares alleged 10 nave peeh suDscrlDe'
ior
Inc alleged subscriptions nave no
oeeh accepted ny the respondents no
mas any person corporation or hrh
been authorized 10 accept them.
respondents furtner say that PRO
10 the time OF receiving any notice ina
piaihtins desired 10 become snare hoid
ers In Said company that bona noe SUD
scriptiohs -ior all the shares OF stoci
had Deeh accepted ana II Is Deyoh'
the power OF tne respondents 10 deliVe
the snares eialIed ny compiaihane.
Is. +. Dillingham; denies that an.
amount was PAID 10 Weicn a. 90, OF
account OF shares IN the Waiaiua AZ
ricuturai Co., WITHIN the time limlte'
ny MIN Tor such payments.
respondents say That the Individual
ana nrms mentioned In Dill OF com
plant were not their agents and tina
their actions were repudiated by re
spohdents as soon as brought TO thei
hoIice.
respondents say mat they ADM
uhat none OF the formal certlhcates 10
Shares Oh the caprai STOCK OF sai'
company nave az TINS Time been issue
put say that all OF the shares were al