The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1900-11-01
STOCK TRANSFER ORDERED
JUDGE HUMPHREYS DECIDES
AGAINST HUsTACE EFT AL.
Amended Bill Can Be Filed after the
Original Decision, and Be Considered
Part of Original Case.

Circuit Judge Humphreys announced
this morning that he would render a
judgment against Frank Foster, j. J.
Egan and Frank Hustace for the return
of 100000 worth of paid up stock of
the Kamalo Sugar Company, in the suit
of Hitchcock and others against the
promoters of the Kamalo Sugar planta-
ton. This determination was reached
as the result of the motion and argu-
ments made by plaintiffs counsel for
leave to file an amended bill to the ori-
ginal complaint which prayed for gen.
eral relief against the defendants. This
amendment asked that the defendants
be required to return 100000 worth of
stock.
When the case was called the court
said that after considering the matter
he had decided to grant the motion of
the plaintiffs. Mr.. Robertson the defen-
dant's attorney asked permission to file
additional evidence in the case but this
the court overruled. In passing upon
the matter the court briefly reviewed
the case. He said that it has been shown
that by means of a motion before the
board of directors which the defen-
dants controlled they had appropriated
$12O,000 worth of paid up stock. Hustace
had refused to surrender the books of
the concern even after his successor had
been elected, claiming that the company
.stituted suit against Hustace and the
others and probably on account of the
fact that Hustace had kept the books
they knew nothing of the transfer of
this stock so in their bill they had asked
merely for the restitution Of $35, 900 al
legged to have been fraudulentlv apLro-
priated and further asked for general
relief.
From evidence the court was satisfied
that the three defendants Ii: d
entered into a criminal partnership
to fraudulently appropriate por-
ton of the stock of the con-
cern. The evidence was as equally
applicable to the $4,000 as to the
$12O,000 worth of stock subsequently ap-
propriated. Inasmuch as the original
complaint did not refer to the appro-
priation of the larger amount and mere
ly asked for general relief the court was
in doubt as to whether it could give
judgement for the second appropriation.
The matter was argued and the Court
in looking up authorities found that in
such cases where general relief had
been prayed for, he could permit an
amended bill TO be filed even after the
first decision had been made and con-
slider it part of the original complaint.
He announced that ne would therefore
render a judgment against the defen-
dants directing them to return 5000
shares of paid up stock or if this trans
fer could not be made the money equi-
valent of the stock at the time of the
transfer, based upon recent Massa-
chussets decision should be paid.
w. A. Kinney stated that he had been
retained by Mr.. Foster and that certain
contracts between his client and the two
other defendants would, he thought
throw a different light upon the re-
lations of Foster with them and prove
that Foster should not be affected to
such an extent by the judgement as
the others. Mr.. Kinney announced
that he would file a motion upon this
point so the court granted him time
in which to protect his client by the
motion for the introduction of addi-
tiOnaI evidence