The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1902-04-09
He TRIES
It AGAIN
Humphreys Goes
For McBryde
Bonds.
DECIDES AGAINST
OWN WITNESSES
Business Men Testify to Safety
of the Plantation
Bonds.

= THE GREATEST BLESSING \
| y that could befall the Islands. =
4 True. it would work a great =
y hardship for a few years and =
| 4 many people will stare financial 4
y ruin in the face, but it would be =
y the means of saving the Islands
= to a brighter and better future, =
y just as the civil war, which de-
4 stroyed slavery, impoverished =
= the South for a time, but later
4 opened up the country to new =
= riches and to a brighter and 4
+ richer future than the old South +
ever dreamed of.-Editorial in A. +
s. Humphreys newspaper, =
y printed on Aug. II. 1901, and in 4
line with the sentiments person +
ally expressed by him in an in +
terview at New Orleans. y
McBryde bonds. which for some rea-
son have been the basis of Judge
Humphreys attacks. were highly COM
mended in his presence yesterday upon
the further hearing of the annual re-
port of a. w. Carter, trustee of the
property of Annie T. X Parker He
had invested S25, 900 in McBryde Sugar
Co. bonds, and the investment was in
formally disapproved by Humphreys,
who claimed that the minority bond
holders were insufficiently secured by
the trust deeds, though the master. F.
j. Russell, had reported otherwise. In
order to prevent an appeal Humphreys
has so far neglected to file his opinion.
to make it Immediately. Consequently
no order has been made and the bonds
are still held by the Parker trustee.
The wisdom of investment in such
bonds was testified to yesterday by
half a dozen prominent business men
and bankers, summoned by Humphreys
upon his own motion, but yet at the
conclusion of the hearing, he swept
aside all the testimony and again dis
approved the investment. He prom
Used again to put his decision in writ
ing in case the trustee wished to ap-
peal, which action may be decided up
on today.
There was an astonishing unanfmity
OF opinion among the experts as to the
safety of McBryde bonds as a trust in
vestment, and none of the witnesses
called by the court had aught but IA
vorable words for the plantation, and
the superiority of the investment in
such bonds over real estate mortgages.
The witnesses called at yesterdays
supplementary hearing were F. NJ.
Swanzy. w. H. Baird. E. H. Wode-
house, a. w. Carter, ]. o. Carter, II.
E. Waity and S. c. Allen.
Trustee Carter, in answer to the
Courts questions, explained why he
had invested the money in McBryde
bonds. He said that he considered
such bonds safer even than real es-
tate mortgages, from the fact that
real estate was more liable to depreci-
ate in value, that titles generally were
faulty and that the security offered
did not always cover the amount of
loan wanted. He said on the other
hand that the sugar industry was up
on a permanent basis and he consid- |
cred SUCH bonds as much better invest
ment than mortgages. on real prop !
erty. He said he had even paid a !
premium upon Oahu Railway and /
Plantation bonds, while the I
McBryde bonds had been obtained at (.
80.
s. c. Allen testified that ne had in |
vested $4,000 in McBryde bonds and |
considered it an excellent investment
The other witnesses testified to prac- |
tically the same matters as did Car |
ter. all agreeing that the bonds were a |
safe investment.
Judge Humphreys took an entirely
different view. not passing at all upon |
the question of sufficiency OF security. /
He held, however, that the trust deed /
did not sufficiently protect the minor
lty bondholderS, and that the invest |
ment of bonds was practically a dele |
cation of authority on the part of the Z
trustees to the McBryde company. He
agreed to file written opinion in the
matter in case the trustee wished to
IL q 10
charged TO Mr.. Carter.
BEFORE JUDGE ROBINSON.
The case of Kahaleaahu VS.. Pereiera
for admea surement of dover was con-
GUIDED before Judge Robinson yester-
lay afternoon, and submitted on the
the attorneys to file briefs
within ten days.
DISTRICT COURT APPEALS.
Appeal has been taken from a deci-
sion OF Judge Dickey. giving judgment
for plaintiff for sSL16 in the case OF /
I. II. Davies & co. Ltd. VS.. Nakaba-
vashl
An appeal has been taken also in the
case of Ching Heong Now VS.. Hee
Cho. wherein Judge Dickey found for
defendant Plaintiff sued to recover
s225. which he claims he paid to de-
fendant for certain shares in the firm /
# Leong Yick Chan, and which de-
'endant failed TO deliver. The COM
pany claims to have repaid the money
to plaintiff.
In the case of Kona Trading Co. Va.
Mrs. Meleana Davis an appeal is noted
rom a judgment in favor Of defendant
The suit is for s21O.06 for goods alleged
% have been purchased by defendant,
0ut which she denies.
ANSWER IN BARTH CASE
An answer making general denial ha.
been filed in the case of Jennie H
8arth vs.. VIM. II. Barth. The defend