The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-03-05
DECISION
HELD.
Sugar Companies
In a Legal
TangIe.
TWO INJUNCTION
BILLS PENDING
U. S. District Court Shows Respect
to Memory of Attorney
T Vim. A. HenshaIF.

THE hearing and argument in the
case OF the Wailuku Sugar Com
pany VS.. the Hawaiian CONNER
cial and Sugar Company, a bill
for injunction, was had yesterday i'll
the First Circuit Court. Decision was
reserved. From a number of exhibits
, filed in connection with the case it was
shown that the attorneys are having
differences OF opinion as to which of
two cases involving almost the same
points, their various answers, affidavits
and motions refer. Attorney Ballou
points out an error in the affidavit of
A. S. HartWell, attorney for the Ha-
waiian Commercial and Sugar Com
pany, in one suit, and if matters con-
! tinue as they have started the two
cases will be in confused muddle
ii On February IS, Kinney, Ballou &,
Mechanism sent letter to w: Il. Cas-
tie, attorney for the Hawaiian Com
| mercial and Sugar Company, quoting
from a letter of G. B. Wells, manager
} of Waikiki Sugar Company, dated
February g, in re Mr.. Castles state
ments: The wall he refers to is above
J the bridge, and was constructed by the
road board and for the purpose he
states. The wall L refer to is situated
below the bridge, is built out of the
Z, river bed below the mouth of their
tunnel. The space between the wall
I and the river bank is now being used
for the dumping of debris from the tun-
ftnel; the BUILDING of this wall in the
bed of the river is disturbing the wa
} ter course
Kinney, Ballou & McClanahan, con-
tinuing, say We beg to repeat that
! unless this matter is stopped forthwith
and the bed of the stream restored to
it's former condition we shall proceed
at once against the Hawaiian Com
mercial and sugar Company by way
of injunction and shall hold the Ha-
waiian Commercial and Sugar Com
pany responsible in damages for the
trespass.'
W. r. Castle, for the Hawaiian Conn
J mercial and Sugar Company, sent the
! following reply on February 16 20 Kin
ney, Ballou & McClanahan's note,
: which was fled in the First Circuit
Court yesterday as an exhibit:
Yours OF the 18th relative TO wall
built by the Hawaiian Commercial ano
Sugar Company in the Waikiki river
was duly received.
waiian Commercial and Sugar Com
pany has nc desire or intention to in
! terfere in any way with any of the
J rights of the Waikiki Sugar Company
i may say even more, that in view OF
the relation existing, that is to say
the Hawaiian Commercial and Sugar
{. Company being the Konohiki of Wailu
ku, we would rather suffer injury il
our own rights than to do anything
:, which would inconvenience or injur,
your people.
II write the above because l fee
there is evidently some misunderstood
ing between US at the present moment
] understand the effect of the embank
ment erected by the Hawaiian Com
Ii mercial and Sugar Company will b
simply to hold the Waikiki stream il
a its course, from which it wandered il
: the great storm of the latter part o
{ last year, still in the bed of the stream
4: ANY way, 1 shall write to Mr.. Louvre
at the very first opportunity and as
him to see to IL that everything is don
necessary to prevent interference wit
any of your lights, and [ will notify yo
at once of the answer l receive fror
him.
s. NJ Ballou, attorney for the plainti
I in the suit Of the Wailuku Sugar Com
! pany VS. Hawaiian Commercial and Su
gar Company, dill for injunction yeste1
day fled an affidavit which reads
I part: Two bills for injunction are nov
. pending In the Circuit Court having tn
I same title, which may be distinguishe
as ~ bill TO prevent the digging of
I tunnel through PLAINTIFFS land, being tn
I
7 junction has issued and 90 bill to pre-
] vent the defendant throwing debris int
the bed of Wailuku stream.
The conversation between deponent an
A. S. Hartwell set out in the affidavit {
ii. p. Baldwin, file, had no relation t
the subject matter OF this suit or of sal
I affidavit; it was not so intended by tn
! deponent and was not SO understood b
! the persons to whom it was addresses
but that the conversation concerned, an
had relation only to the subject matte
I of the other bill for Injunction now penC
1 ing and incidentally to the obstruction
Z highways by the defendant below tt
Government bridge.
7 The localities of the subject matter col
/ tanned in the two suits are separate an
distinct, the tunnel beginning approx
! mately fifty feet above the GovernmeI
!? bridge and the point where the tunn
threatens TO cross PLAINTIFFS land beir
approximately 800 feet above the bridg
I while the locality for the dumping of d
bris is approximately 100 feet below,
! makai of the Government bridge. TT
! conversation referred to by H. p. Bal
: win took place in the last named local
ty, Immediately upon the scene of II
I dumping of the debris and referred who
] ly and exclusively to the obstructc
! caused by the debris and by the railros
! track for transporting the same.
~ The plaintiff in its replication filed We
- terday said in reserving to itself all rig
of exception, many errors, unceTtafnti
and insufficiencies in the plaintiffs b
of complaint, that the answer was u
=. true and will prove it. Several mark
-. photographs of the localities mention
.s are also filed as exhibits.
RESOLUTIONS OF REGRET.