The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1902-01-07
LIKE
OAHU BONDS
Humphreys Again
Running
AmuCk.
From Saturdays daily)

CTrom Saturdays daily)
The oahu Railway and Land CO.
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 1000 invested in Oahu bonds
and also a note for $4,000 given by Nj.
y. Robinson, one of the benehciarles.
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 a clause similar to
those of McBryde and Waialua or not
I'VE 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."
1.-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.. Allen, 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-hoders
the authority of the trustee.
NEW TRIAL REFUSED.
Judge Humphreys filed a written de-
cision yesterday denying the motion
for a 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 OF
innocence of the defendants, and that
the article he had read left no impress
sion upon his mind which it would take
evidence to remove, and that he could
and would render a true and impartia
verdict according to the law and the
evidence"
The court refers to the affidavit fllet
by Peterson in which he denies having
!. talked with Mike Lyons, ard that tn,
. record does not show that Lyons hat
been summoned as witness in The
case, nor did he testify in this case
The court holds that the positive denia
> of Peterson is sufficient and refuses t
al grant the motion for n new trial.
y INCOME TAX APPEAL.
The submission OF an agreed state
ment of facts in the appeal Of the Oah'
: Railway and Land Company from tn
-. assessment of an income tax was mad
10 yesterday in the Supreme Court.
~ This submission sets out the contrac
- made on Dee /. lS>H, between IL. +
~ Dillingham; and the Minister OF the In
terror for the construction of Il rail
:. road, and also the return made to tn
>, assessor. The submission alleges:
y, THAT of the sum of $500, Si6.S3 gros
=. income of said plaintiff as shown b,
~ Schedule A of said return, the sum o
s6l6, 206.S9 was income / derived from
property which defendant admits |
49, fairly nece ssary to the reasonable con
- struction, maintenance and operation
l., of said railroad, and that the sum O
- S207, $685. i was income derived fror
= property which plaintiff admits is no
~ fairly necessary to the maintenance {
= the road.
~. THAT of the remainder of said gros
80 income, to-wit, the sum of sS2,750.9
" the sum of S3l, 1864 was for wharfae
collected from vessels not belonging
Nv plaintiff, using the wharves belongin
q" to said plaintiff; the sum of s5,l96.'
- was for storage; the sum of s3,46S.
y" was received for use of plaintiff
scales; the sum of sac, 100 was n sui
- sidy received from the government"
en The paragraph In the company
:" charter providing that no taxes sha
be levied for twenty years upon 1rol
~, erty necessary to maintenanceN an
It construction is set out.
-, Plaintiff claims that under the la
l'' and the terms OF the aforesaid contra
"a !. it is wholly exempt from the paymel
y of any tax upon its income under a
20, of the session laws of 1901. Defen,
'e ant claims that plaintiff is liable
taxation upon it's entire net incon
over and above the deductions allow,
no -, -, =, ia 90, On 80 tho CO
We sion laws of 1901 and enumerated
u Schedule "B" of said Exhibit "A"
Ter An adjudication is requested upC
sAnn.