The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-12-05
CONTINUED from Page 3,


spectfully shows that sad Supreme Court
was then and there in the matter OF said
pretended submission or said pretended
contro yersy, and in its decision and judg-
ment therein wholly and without any au-
thority, power, warrant of law or juris-
diction, either to hear or to determine
SAID pretended submission of said pre-
tended CONT oversy; that your orator
never appeared in said alleged submission
either in person or by attorney nor did
your orator sign or authorize any person
in its behalf to sign or consent To the
said pretended submission that your or
iator never received, accepted or acknowl-
edged service OF process of any character
in said alleged submission either in per-
son. attorney or otherwise; that the pre-
tended appearance in said alleged sub
mission of Paul Neumann, Esq, or of
AIessrs. Holmes & Stanley or of either OF
them as attorneys or as counsel for your
orator herein. was wholly unauthorized
by your orator, and was entirely without
either the knowledge or consent of your
| orator; and that your orator never knew
anything concerning said pretended sub
mission of said alleged controversy until
after the said pretended submission had
1 neen made and said decision rendered,
made and given
! Upon the hearing of the order to show
| cause. a motion was FLED by the Rapid
Transit and Land Company, through its
attorneys, and upon the affidavit of Clin-
! ton Or. Ballentyne, for rule against j.
J. Dunno and John T De Bolt to show
| their authority to act as attorneys for
| the petitioner herein An order was made
/ by the Court for the said J. J. Dunno
! and J. 7. De Bolt 10 show their author
| ity to act attorneys for the petitioner.
and also to show their compliance with
the provisions of the Civil Laws of the
Territory of Hawaii, relative to the filing
ty foreign corporations of certain docu
7
In response to said order a voluminous
affidavit was filed by w. II. Pain, as
manager of the petitioner, together with
certain other documentary evidence.
In said affidavit, said Pain alleges the
following:
This affiant further shows that from
1889 to the present time he has been and
still is the sole manager and representa-
tive of said plaintiff and petitioner. cor
poration aforesaid, and as such had con-
troll direction and management eXclu-
sively of all the transactions of said cor
poration in said Honolulu. during all the
times herein mentioned; and this affiant
during all the times herein mentioned, /
and as part of his authority and duties !
as said manager, had the exclusive con- |
troll and management of all the business,
affairs and transactions of said corpora
ton in Honolulu, and represented said |
corporation therein. including en- !
ployment and discharge of attorneys and
counsellors control and management of
all litigation with full power of
representation of said corporation in all !
of said matters and in all matters Incl |
dental thereto or connected Herewith
.
After the introduction of certain oral
evidence, these two propositions and the
general question of the issuance of a pre-
liminary injunction was argued before
the court and the matter submitted for
its decision.
The complainant is a foreign corpora
ton, organized under the laws of Great
Britain and Ireland. 1t has no director
or other officer, except its manager, w.
H. Pain, residing within the jurisdiction
of this Court or without the jurisdiction
of Great Britain and Ireland Since 1889
w. H. Pain. as he testifies, has acted as
the sole manager OF this corporation in
these Islands; during this time he has
had the exclusive control of all it's af-
fairs in this Territory, Including the
employment and discharge of attorneys
and counsellors and the management and
control of all litigation !,
Complainant is now seeking for tenn
porary Injunction against respondent.
which is allowable only when from a fun
statement of the facts a permanent in 4
junction might be granted.
1t appears, from the facts brought out
on the hearing. that the complaining and ;
respondent were heretofore parties to
certain ItlSatlOn aHecUnS Jnelf CndTleF
rights to construct and maintain street ;
in the city of Honolulu, and
especially in relation to their right to lay
a street railway track on King street in
the city of Honolulu; and being DESTROYS .
OF settling their differences as TO their
rights TO the of King ;
street in Honolulu they did. pursuant to
Sections 1855 to 1858 inclusive of the Civil !
Laws of the Territory Of Hawaii, on the
-2ad day of January, 1901, enter into an
p ETecment whereby their differences were
submitted to the Supreme Court of the ,
Territory of Hawaii for its adjudication,
and which adjudication the parties agreed
to abide by. This agreement and state
ment of facts was originally signed by
Honolulu Rapid Transit and Land Com
Dany, by w. r. Castle, and Kinney, Bal 5
ou & AIcClanahan; Hawn. Tramways /
Company. Ltd, by Holmes & Stanley, of !
And a further agreement or I
stipulation was also made and executed
,n the 27th day of March, 1901, which was
signed by kinney. Ballou K McCIana-
nan. attorneys for the Hon. Rapid Tran ,
sir &, Id. CO. and by Holmes & Stan
ev. Attys. for Hawaiian Tramways Co.
Ltd" and submitted to the Supreme
Court of the Territory of Hawaii as ap- /
lears by the Exhibit A" which is made
l part of the affidavit of W. H. Pain, t
lied in support of his bill in this pro- q
.eeding.
1t also appears from said Exhibit "A"
hat Clinton G. Ballentyne, as manager T
# the Honolulu Rapid Transit and Land I
Company. and w. L. Stanley of Holmes :
( Stanley, attorneys for the Hawaiian
rramways Company, made oatn before Y
edmund Hart, a notary public, that the {
controversy lis real and the proceedings il
n good faith to test the rights of the I
,arties." Z
The minutes of the Clerk Of the Su- g
irene Court of the Territory Of Hawaii {
"a grTi n1
# said Exhibit "A') snow that ali the } o
.ttorneys for both sides of said contro | L
-ersy appeared before said Court and ! c
hat w l.. Stanley, one OF said attor- "
Ieys for the Hawaiian Tramways Com , p
amy, read said agreed statement OF facts 4
o the Court and argued the case on the 1 o
art of said company; that Mr.. McClan- I
han argued the case for the Honolulu
rapid Transit and Land Company. and fl
hat on the 18th day Of March. 1891. both ! Z;