The Hawaiian gazette., 1901-11-26
PAIN TELLS
HIS STORY
ON STAND
lie Tried to Stop
Supreme Court
Submission.
CFrom Saturdays daily)

pany was concluded yesterday after
noon. and Judge Estee announced that
he will render his decision as soon ar
ter the filing of briefs by the attorneys
as possible. The attorneys are given
until next Monday TO file their list OF
authorities. The arguments OF yes'er-
day did not deal with the main ques-
tion of injunction, but simply with the
right of the Tramways 'onpan! W
appear in court.
Manager Pain was on the stand as
a witness for the Honolulu Rapid
Transit Company yesterday morning
to show his part in the proceeding m
stituted in the Supreme Court. he
made an all too ready witness, ana ms
counsel Mr. Dunno, angrily stopped
him several times after he had at
tempted to answer the questions put |
10 him by Mr. McClanahan. The eX- |
animation was conducted almost exclu-
siyely on the affidavit OF Mr.. Pain, IN
this case, and his connection with the
submission to the supreme Court
In this affidavit" asked Mr.. Nc
Clanahan of Mr. Pain, do you. in re-
ferring to the compliance with chapter
A., laws of 1898, requiring foreign cor
porations to file articles of incorpora-
tion and bylaws, refer to these art-
cleS of association
Il referred to the articles of associa-
ton and bylaws, the same as were
filed in 1889
In 1899. then you found they were
not there
Il found they had been taken away
Ry the court-"Answer the question
No: they were not there.
You have not denied In these plead
ings that you were present in supreme
Court at the time of this submission
of the agreed statement of Facts
Il was there
Were you inside the railing, in the
courtroom
Yes, sir; at the attorneys table.
Were Paul Neumann and Mr.. stan
ley there
Yes, sir
What We're you there iorf
TO look around.
Look around at what?
AT the proceedings which We're tax
ing place" 49,. u
.''The proceedings between the Homo
lulu Rapid Transit Company and the
Hawaiian Tramways Company con
tinued Mr.. McClanahan.
The alleged proceedings.
Was w. L. Stanley attorney for the
Hawaiian Tramways Company
He acted for Paul Neumann.
And whom did Paul Neumann ac'
FORE"
He acted ON his own account"
Did YOU make ANY protest at thai
hearing?"
Il had already protested to Mr.. Neu
mann" 80,
..On what ground did you protest.
Il objected on the ground that ii wa'
contrary to the policy of the company
since it's start, and each case SHOULD
be fought separately to the court oi
why did you object to Mr., Neu.
mann?'
What had Mr. Neumann to do will
the natter
He had nothing to do with II.
You had the sole authority
Yes, sir
Where did you get that authority,
From the agreement of lSS9, whict
was in force until January /, 1901
After the objection to Mr.. Neumann
did you make further objection?'
Yes, sir; | objected to Judge stan
ley 49,.
it?"
He was arguing the case. me
Mr.. Neumann in San Francisco, and h
told me what he had done, and | ask
ed why he did it, He said 1t was to-
late now; what was done could not b
undone."
1T was after this protest to MI
Stanley that this additional submission
of fact was entered into. was it not?
Il know of no such agreement
Here il is in your return; ii is
stipulation of factY'
1T purports to be stipulation
Did you know of that being Signr
by Holmes & Stanley
Some question came up at the hear
ing, and l. suppose that was it, | sal
to Judge Stanley, Good God, Stanle!
what did you let Neumann put tina
thing up for; it's contrary to the Who'll
policy of the company | had moth
ing to do with it at all, Mr. Neuman
did it,"
George l.. Smithes. former cler
in the Interior Department, testified a
TO the affidavit he had made regard
ing the filing of the articles of assc
citation, and stated that he had testiie
they We're certified, only from memor
An affidavit was also Introduce
from Treasurer Wright To the effe'
that his testimony as to the iilng
the articles was not entirely correC
and he did not know whether they ht
been certified.
Mr.. McClanahan then began his a
gument as to the rule against the a
torneys, and the faulty showing of al
thority that had been made by Pal
He resumed again in the afternoo
and was followed by Mr. Dunno f
plaintiff. The latter contended tn
there was no showing that the Supren
Court was involved in the Controvers
and that the only matter before Il
court was the constitutionality OF d
PENDANTS action. He spoke at leng
upon the laws governing foreign co
porations. contending that the cor
plainant had complied with every co
dition.
During his argument in response
question, the court said: The cour
of every State and the United Stat
supreme Court have held that foreii
corporations doing business in a sta
ar Territory are subject to the laws
that State or Territory, and must Ii
~ to them"
LII. Mcclanahan had the closing a
Pulent, following which, Judge Est