The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-11-16
CALLS FOR
AUTHORITY
Rapid Transit Has
New Answer to
lramWays.
WOULD BAR THE
TWO ATTORNEYS
Uses Statements of Pain in Cir
cult Court in Support of
Motion.

! the Honolulu Rapid Transit Company
filed yesterday the Hawaiian Tramways
Company will be without attorneys
when its bill for injunction comes up
in tie United States court this morn
Ig And the funny part &C the whole
proce eding is that the respondent in the
case uses the specific plea made by the
plaintiff as an argument why the at
torneys, Dunno and De Bolt, should
not be allowed to act in behalf of
Manager Pain of the Tramways com
pany.
The following is the answer filed yes
terday:
Now comes the Honolulu Rapid Tran
sit & Land Company, respondent in the
above entitled cause CHawaiian Tram
ways Company VS.. Honolulu Rapid Tran
sit & Land Company, and expressly re-
serving unto itself all rights, and more
particularly it's right of reply to the aft
/ davit of w. II. Pain filed herein on the
18th day of November, 1901, moves this
honorable Court for the issuance of
rule against ]. J. Dunno and John T.
De Bolt TO show their authority for APP
pearing in said cause as counsel for
I
said petitioner to the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court.
In support of this motion respondent
shows that the Hawaiian TramWayS
Company, Ltd, plaintiff and petitioner,
alleged by its pleadings filed herein, that
it is a foreign corporation, created, form
ed and existing and acting and doing
business under and pursuant to the laws
of the Kingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland; that it's Office and principal
place of business is at number 60 Queen
street, in the city of London, England.
That it's board of directors holds its
meetings at said 63 Queen street, and
that no Director or other officer resides
on the Island of Oahu in the Territory
of Hawaii
That its secretary and other officers
are residents of the city of London, En-
gland, and that no director, agent ofi-
Ger or other representative resides with
in the Territory of Hawaii or beyond the
jurisdiction of the Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland. except the manager
of its street railway in the city of Homo
lulu who resides in said city.
That neither said manager nor any 9TH
er person, unless thereunto expressly au-
thorized by it's said board of directors,
has or has had any authority whatever
to enter into a contract on its behalf or
to make any representations so as to inn
pose upon it any liabilities or otherwise
to pledge its credit.
That the pleadings filed herein by re-
spondent show that in the month of
March. 1901, one w. H. Pain, then as now
the manager of said foreign corporation
in the city of Honolulu, together with
certain reputable attorneys of this Hon
orable Court and of the Supreme Court
of the Territory of Hawaii, appeared be-
fore said Supreme Court and then and
there submitted said foreign corporation
to the jurisdiction of said Supreme Court,
claiming and holding out and represent
ing to said court that they had the au-
thority and power so to do
That IN so submitting sa d foreign cor
poration to the jurisdiction of said court
a certain agreement was entered into by
which it was agreed to submit to the
judgment and decision of said court GER
tain questions of difference between said
foreign corporation and this respondent.
and in said agreement the judgment of
said court was prayed for.
That said Supreme Court assumed jul
risdiction of both the parties and sub
I.ject matter under said agreement.
That said Supreme Court believed, had
a right to believe, and were led to be-
lieve by said manager and by said attor-
neys, that said foreign corporation had
authorized said agreement TO be entered
into and said submission to it's jurisdic-
ton to be made.
That said manager and said attorneys
appeared before Salu court and Inar the
matters of difference 50 submitted to it
were argued, and that subsequently the
judgment of said court on said matters
was rendered.
That this present suit is brought by
W. II. Pain, manager of the Hawaiian
Tramways Company, Ltd, the identi-
cal person shown herein to be the w. H.
Pain who, while manager of said Hawai-
ian Tramways Company, Ltd, was pres
ent at the argument on said submission
before said Supreme Court.
That said foreign corporation, petition
or herein now alleges, through its plead
ings filed herein, that ii did not appear
in said submission by said attorneys, nor
did il authorize said attorneys on it's be-
half 10 sign or consent to said subms-
sion, and that the appearance in said
submission of Paul Neumann Esq, and
Messrs. Holmes & Stanley was wholly
unauthorized and without its knowledge
or consent.
That petitioners pleadings filed herein
show that on the day on which it's bill
was filed in the Circuit Court of the
First Judicial Circuit, Territory of Ha-
wall that last named bill was signed,
The Hawaiian Tramways Company,
Limited. n corporation. by William H.
Pain. manager" and that ]. T. De Bolt
Thomas Fitch and j. j. Dunno appeared
by said bill 10 be its counsel.
Your respondent shows that assuming
but not admitting that said petitioners
sworn allegations are true as set forth
| in its pleadings herein. il would be I'M
safe for II to proceed further in this suit
and it would be negotiable for this
Honorable Court to allow further pro-
ceedings in the premises until the au-
thority be shown under which the coun-
sci for petitioner herein acted in submit
ting petitioner to the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court
That on the face of the proceedings
had herein there is no distinguishment
so far as the showing Of authority OF
counsel is concerned. between these and