The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1902-01-04
|DON'T LIKE
OAHU BONDS
Humphreys Again
Running
Amuck.
ANOTHER TEST
OF INCOME LAW
KelIett Resigns as Clerk-Motion
for New Trial in Schnack
Case is Denied.

4
bonds were questioned as a trust in
vestment by Judge Humphreys yester-
day morning. The court stated that
if the bonds contained the same pro-
visions as did McBryde and Waialua
he would disallow the investment.
The order was made upon the report
of Henry Smith as master in the estate
of James Robinson. The inventory
showed $4,000 invested in Oahu bonds
and also a note for SIS 900 given by NJ
p Robinson, one of the benefciaries.
The court ordered this note taken UP
at once, saying he would disapprove
the investment, and Mr.. Robinson re-
piled he had no objection to paying the
note.
s. c. Allen, one of the trustees, stat
ed that he did not know whether the
Oahu bonds had clause similar to
those of McBryde and Waialua or not.
1--WE will withdraw the investment, "
continued Mr. Allen. These railroad
bonds in my opinion are the best in
vestment and the safest in the ISL
ands.''
THE court fails to see, replied
Humphreys, why investments should
be made in per cent railroad bonds.
or that they are better than individual
notes at per cent, secured by fifty
per cent property. Lots of money can
be obtained at that figure now"
Yes" responded Mr.. Alien, land
such property is always depreciating,
until you can't tell what it is worth"
The court reserved its decision until
Monday, saying the bonds would be
examined in the meantime, remarking
that the present form of bond dele
gated TO the majority of bond holders
the authority of the trustee.
NEW TRIAL REFUSED.
Judge Humphreys filed a written de-
cision yesterday denying the motion
for new trial in the case of the Ter
ritory VS.. Schnack, Juen and Savidge.
The court holds that the contention
that the verdict is contrary to law and
evidence, was not pressed and is not
sustained.
Referring to the misconduct of a jur-
or, Nick Peterson. in discussing the
case with one Mike Lyons, the court
says: Peterson, upon being examined
on his voir dire under oath. stated
that his only knowledge of the facts
in the case came from reading an ar
ticle in the Advertiser; that he had
formed an opinion as to the guilt or
innocence of the defendants, and that
the article he had read left no impress
sion upon his mind which it would take
tn
and would render true and impartial
verdict according TO the law and the
evidence
The court refers to the affidavit filed
by Peterson in which he denies having
talked with Mike Lyons. and that the
record does not show that Lyons had
been summoned as a witness in the
case, nor did he testify in this case
The court holds that the positive denial
of Peterson is sufficient and refuses to
grant the motion for a new trial
INCOME TAX APPEAL.
The submission of an agreed state
ment of facts in the appeal of the Oahu
Railway and Land Company from the
assessment of an income tax was made
yesterday in the Supreme Court
This submission sets out the contract
made on Dec. I. 1888. between &. f.
Dillingham; and the Minister of the IN
terror for the construction Of a rail
road, and also the return made to the
assessor. The submission alleges:
That of the sum of $500 SIS gross
income of said plaintiff as shown by
Schedule \ of said return. the sum of
$el6,2o6.S9 was income deEiyed from
property which defendant admits is
fairly necessary to the reasonable con
81 81 fr,r.
of said railroad. and that the sum Of
$207.SS9.0i was income derived from
which plaintiff admits is not
fairly necessary to the maintenance Of (
the road.
That of the remainder OF said gross /
income, towit, the sum of $50. 80. 80 /
the sum of S31, 3S6.34 was for wharfage /
collected from vessels not belonging to /
plaintiff. using the wharves belonging
TO said plaintiff; the sum of S5.l96.3 /
was for storage; the sum of SO. 46s. 19 !
was received for use of plaintiffs /
scales; the sum of $40. 700 was a sub |
sidy received from the government"
The paragraph in the 'company's |
charter providing that no taxes shall |
be levied for twenty years upon prop |
erty necessary to maintenance ana |
is set out
Plaintiff claims that under the law |
and the terms of the aforesaid contract |
1t is wholly exempt from the payment |
Of any tax upon its income under act t
20, of the session laws of 1901. Defend
ant claims that plaintiff is liable to
taxation upon its entire net income |
over and above the deductions allowed |
by the terms of said act 20 of the ses-
sion laws of 1901 and enumerated in |
Schedule ''B" of said Exhibit "A
An adjudication is requested upon |
the following questions:
lis the plaintiff wholly exempt from |
TAXATION on its iDrOma7