Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1902-04-20
LOW RETORTS
upon Hind
Trouble 0yerPuuWaaWaa
Ranch Partnership
Looms Up.
DEFENDANT CLAIMS he
BUILT UP The RANCH
IntimateS That Enforced Dissolution
Would Do Him Irreparable Injury
--UOmplainant's Large Fortune
To Buck Against,

There would seem to he a battle royal
coming on over the Puuwaawaa ranch,
popularity known as Lows in the
equity suit for dissolution of partner
ship brought by Robert Hind against
Eben p. Low. An answer to the COM
plant was filed late yesterday by Ma
COON & Dillon, attorneys for the defen-
dant.
Mr.. Low denies that II was ever
understood between them that Mr.
Hind was to retain his position as a
stock luna for Hawi plantation. He
admits that he himself had held the
Office of tax assessor but denies that II
interfered appreciably with the duties
be- owed to the copartnership, as
he hired a competent person to per.
form nearly all of the actual work Of
the office.
Defendant admits that for compen-
sation he had undertaken the construc.
ton of public road, but that the road
is entirely upon land leased by the
copartnership and of great beretit to
its business. Nearly of the cleri-
cal work connected with the contract
has been done at night and not taken
defendants time away from the bust.
ness of the copartnership.
Up to about the time OF entering the
Copartnership Mr.. Low gays be was
manager of Puuhue ranch In Eui ala
at q salary of 5000 and that his services
at date of the copartnership were worth
$1,000 a year and found. II was eX-
peCted that the services Of complainant,
Mr.. Hind, would be of equal value ia
the copartnership, but on TIE contrary
he did not render any services thereto
as he lived at a great distance from
the ranch.
Defendant tells of himself working
day and night to develop the ranch
and says: THAT for about the first
four years of said period defendant
had TO live without proper food or
shelter and was almost wholly depriv-
ed OF the society OF his wife and chill.
dren, II being impossible for defendant
to construct upon said ranch suit.
able place for them to live in. That
in consequence Of Complainant's fail
ure to do his share of said work com.
plainant promised TO defendant to al.
low him extra compensation in the
premises, which compensation up tC
this time has not been fixed"
Defendant denies that complainant
has devoted much time and attention
to the cOpartnership business, and say;
that the stock ranch Of Puuwaawaa wa.
established and conducted entirely by
/ the efforts of defendant, and whatGvci
complainant attempted to do In tn,
premises was more of dctriment L
/ the ranch than benefit"
And 50 on, through many pages, Mr.
/ Low denies the allegations mad,
against him by his partner, while max
/ ing statements derogatOry to the com
| plainant's doings relative to the enter
prise. As to the charge that he ha,
| used the ranch for his own privat
ends, Mr.. Low denies 1t and says tina
II Is the custom throughout the Isl
ands for n manager of a ranch of thi
kind to be found, and in addition 4
be furnished with house and wit
everything that the ranch yields, sue
as vegetables, fruits, wood, meat an
other ranch products, also domesti
servants" He declares he has bee
in nowise eXtrayagant in these respect
but limited himself to the bare neces
saries of life. When complainant ha
been at the ranch, entertained by dc
PENDANT, he has at times complainc
that defendant was too mean in hi
style Of living"
AS u matter OF course he had enter
tanned visitors, but as a rule they weT
Ianchmen or stoCkmen who came to Sc
"one of the most Systematically cor
Quoted ranches In the Territory of Ill
wall" and II was for the benefit of tn
Copartnership to have visits from sue
! persons.
Instead OF defendant having ever n
ceiyed a proposition to retire as allies
, ed, complainant had frequently said
him that II he desired to buy out con
plainant's interest he could have II fC
$4,000 less than the highest he coul
get from any third person.
AS to accounting. II was the duty I
complainant to account to defendaI
rather than the reverse.
! The copartnership was formed o.
tober |, 1893, for a term of % yea
and obligations had been incurred
prospect of such term. Defendal
contends that the ranch has value
him which It has not to complainant
) and that to force a dissolution of Il
copartnership at this time would VOL
an irrepatable injury TO defendant,
. that complainant has within the la
year come into possession Of a larl
fortune, and is in position to bid |
L the cOpartnership property in case
/, sale to q figure which defendant cou
y not pay and thereby deprive defe
7 dant Of his expectations of making Il
profits and gains which he had c
'' pected to make and which he won
j make in case the copartnorshp co
tinued for the said period"
The conclusion Of Mr.. Lows answ
Is as follows:
THAT the ranch has a value to d
PENDANT which It does not have to cor
plainant, inasmuch as when cOmplai