The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1903-10-19
W|LDERS IN
LITIGATION
Honolulu Men involved
in Dispute Over a
Rainier Mill.

The following report Of equity suits
over valuable mill property at Rainier
Wash, is from a late Tacoma paper:
W. I. Reed, who, together with Gard
ner K. Wilder, owns the Rainier Mill &
Lumber Company, at Rainier, filed a
motion in the State Circuit Court yes
terday asking for the removal of the
receiver, Bluford D. Sigler. The receiv-
er was appointed several months ago
by Judge Frazer as the result of a suit
brought by Wilder against Reed for an
accounting.
Reed has filed an affidavit in conjunc-
ton with his motion, in which he al
leges that the receiver has allowed bills
to remain unpaid, and has committed
other wrongful acts. 1t is stated that
the actions of Mr.. SigIer in conducting
a recent sale of the mill property have
been such as to cause great financial
injury and TO affect seriously the prop
erty under his charge.
In this connection Reed AYERS that
on September 26 last, the receiver at
tempted to sell the mill property at
Rainier to the highest bidder, the con-
ditions of the sale being that 10 per
cent of the bid be paid to the receiver
by the successful bidder On the day of
the confirmation of the sale and the
balance within 80 days afterward.
1t is alleged that there were four
bidders at the sale and the property
was disposed of for $4,000 to Charles
Wilder, who, it is asserted. bid for
Gardner K. Wilder. Immediately after
the sale, Reed says he notified the re-
ceiver to demand payment, and that he
(the receiver) would be held RESPONSE
BILE if he sold the property and did
not procure the deposit, but Mr.. Sigler
refused to ask for the deposit of 10 per
cent, and failed to collect it. 1t is
charged further that the receiver was
subsequently requested to collect the
10 per cent and make his report as soon
as possible to the court, and has not
complied with either demand.
Reed also asserts that Charles Wilder
and Gardner K. Wilder have told the
receiver within the last few days, and
have instructed their attorneys that
they will not be bound by the bid and
will not pay any money, and will throw
the whole thing back in the condition
it was before the sale. Referring to
this subject, Reed says:
IT am convinced that Charles VIII
der, who made the bid, was not bidding
in good faith and had no intention of
purchasing the property, but attended
the sale for the purpose of putting the
same and to raise the@pricesas against
legitimate bids. Areport of the sale
should have been Immediately made TO
the court for the purpose OF informing
the court of the condition of affairs, but
no report was made at ALL"
The charge is made that no insurance
is kept on the property. and that the
receiver employs a night Waterman.
The property is said to be open and
unmatched during the daytime except
by Reed and his son. There is said to
be lack Of attention to the machinery,
and it is stated that logs are in the
water at Gray's River, which have
been there ever since the receiver was
appointed, and ought to have been look
ed after and disposed of long ago.
The receiver is charged with having
neglected to pay certain bills or TO
make monthly reports to the court, as
he is required to do. Reed says he has
been unable to obtain from the receiver
a satisfactory statement regarding the
condition of the business, and he de-
mands his discharge. Hogue & Will
liams appear as Reeds attorneys.