The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1904-04-12
HAS THREE
OPPONENTS
HutChins Pulling
Hard Against
Stream.
(From Saturdays Daily.)

Co.'S enterprise, Clinton j. HutchinS
has a triumvirate of opponents to bat
tie against. Judgment is recorded
against him as trustee for the delivery
of the railroad property to VIM. w.
Bierce Ltd, of Chicago, on his appeal
from which to the Supreme Court he
is required by Judge De Bolt to file a
bond in the sum of $4,000. Robert L..
Colburn has interviewed in suit
against him to have himself declared
a partner of Hutchins and others in
the properties bought at the receivers
sale. The Kapiolani Estate Ltd, is
trying to enforce a writ of possession
for the mill property of the defunct
company. In connection with the last
mentioned matter, charges of miscon-
duct in office have been presented to the
Attorney General against Thomas Aiu,
Second District Magistrate of North
Kona.
Judge De Bolt yesterday issued an
order of execution in the case of VIM.
w. Bierce, Ltd, VS.. Clinton j. Hutch
ms, trustee, to take effect unless the
defendant on or before a. m. of April
Is deposit with the clerk a bond in
the sum of twice the amount of the
judgment. Defendant was allowed, in
another proceeding, until April 16 to
file his bill of exceptions.
AFFIDAVIT BY HUTCHINS.
Clinton j. Hutchins yesterday filed
an affidavit relative to the suit of
Robert l.. Colburn, seeking to have the
latter declared partner with him and
others in the properties purchased by
affiant at the receivers sale of the
Kona Sugar Co.'s properties. He de-
poses that he has consulted attorneys
and that there Is no merit in Colburn's
suit. He is informed that the suit Will
in no way interfere with the rehabil-
tation of the plantation formerly known
as the Kona Sugar Co. plantation. He
denies that the leases of lands on
which it is proposed to continue a SUI
gar plantation have expired, but on
the contrary states that they have
from Is to % years yet to run.
Affiant denies that the properties pur-
chased by him at the sale cannot be
continued as a sugar plantation for the
reasons set forth in e. b. McClana-
hans affidavit or for any other reason,
but on the contrary he has practically
completed a reorganization and that
within ten days, as atfiant believes, the
said plantation will be in operation and
it's matters and affairs SO arranged
that a sugar plantation will be con-
tinued upon the properties formerly
constituting the Kona Sugar Co. plan
tation.
Mr.. Hutchins says he is able to take
good care of all the properties involved
and, as to the railway material involv-
ed in the Berce suit, he expects to be
able to reverse the judgment of the
Circuit Court upon appeal to the
Supreme Court. The possession of the
railway which he believes became his
property at the receivers sale, he says
is of vital Importance to the continu-
ance of the plantation.
He claims that the security on his
former redelivery bond is good and
sufficient and further states that he has
filed in the present action a bond in
$4,000 that he will not dispose of any
of his property pending the determine
ton of the appeal.
Finally, he represents the plaintiff on
its own claim as being a foreign corr
poration without agents here or prop
erty within the jurisdiction of the court
other than that involved in this action,
and says if possession is given to plain
LII tHe property VIII ne ulSptiStu
either by sale to various parties or it
will be removed from the jurisdiction
of this court, and therefore If affiant
finally succeeds in this case he will be
unable to follow the property or to
recover damages from plaintiff.
ANOTHER AFFIDAVIT.
Guy F. Maydwel, attorney, in an
affidavit says that the judgment of
possession granted by Second District
Magistrate Thomas Aiu to Kapiolanl
Estate, Ltd, for possession of the Ko-
ma Sugar Co. mill property was stayed
by an appeal therefrom to the Third
Circuit Court, but Notwithstanding said
appeal Aiu, at the instance of the man.
ager of the Kapolani Estate, Ltd,
John F. Colburn, in fraud of the rights
of defendant in Bierce VS.. Hutchins.
issued writ of possession under which
the Estate was put in possession of the
property and defendant ousted there
from on March 2S. He says the Second
District Magistrate pretended 10 be
acting under Secs. II and 10, Chap. 80,
Laws of 1908, but that no true grounds
Were shown nor was any hearing had
on any application for the issuance or
the writ Defendant had no opportu-
nifty of a hearing but the writ was is
sued surreptitlously and fraudulently.
without the knowledge of defendant or
his attorneys. and said magistrate was
misled and deceived into issuing the
same" A motion is pending before Ain
90 recall ana set aside the writ, which
afiiant believes viii be granted ana II
not he vii proceed by eerlloari 90 set
u aside, Tho appeal viii BE- heard IA
term on Apnl ai or az soon thereafter
a. counsel can he hnard u Is believed
The anpenl VIII b. successful aa tho
MAGISTRATE decided ihr fHaH contrary
- dsflaIona NJ m supreme Cont ana
u T. nr4lIF ulhead
That sala kHpl0Hgl rHata limited
lfauRnt Hali a9lan faf ihH purpose ~
hafasFinH Hni HnHnFlHH HfhHaHnll and
NIllunI AuL I1.lI LL.lnIa IL M.