The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1904-06-14
PARKER RANCH DISPUTE
TAKES A DAY IN COURT
Magoon Argues That Sam. Parker Has Absolute
Control Of the Property---Carter's
Historical Return.

Parker Ranch contest. This was on an
injunction suit entered late Friday by
Samuel Parker against Alfred w. Car
ter, to enjoin and restrain the respond
ent from interfering with the manage
or trespassing upon the premises. The
occasion was Carriers refusal to surren-
der the management of the property to
manager by Mr.. Parker and went to
take the place.
AS already reported by the Adver-
tser, Mr.. Carter brought suit. as guar
| dian of Annie T. X. Parker, a minor
| and halloween of the Parker Ranch,
before Judge Edings at Kailua for par
tition of the property between Samuel
| Parker and his client, two days in adj
vance of Parker's suit here. Carters
petition was also for an injunction to
restrain Parker through Eben P. Low
or anybody else. from interfering with
his management pending the determi-
nation of the suit. This priority of ac-
ton on Carriers part raised a question
of jurisdiction in Parker's suit, but
though coming up in the pleadings it
had not been ruled on by Judge Gear
when the court rose for the day.
Plaintiff was represented at yester-
days hearing by ]. Alfred Magoon and
]. Lghtfoot with Fred. Wundenberg,
trustee of Parker, present. Defendants
counsel were Arthur A. Wilder of Rob-
ertson & Wilder, w. A. Kinney of Kin
ney, McClanahan & Cooper, and S. NJ
Ballou and p. Anderson Of Hatch &
Ballou.
Mr.. Magoon argued for the petition
well into the afternoon. He laid great
Parker after the death of John p. Par
ker the elder, was the sole surviving
partner of the partnership owning the
ranch and as such, according to the law
books, entitled to supreme control. Any
heir or heirs had the privilege, on the
death of the other partner, to take the
proper course for having the partner
ship affairs settled and receiving his or
their portion or portions of the proceeds
or of the property. This had not been
done in the case of the Parker Ranch
partnership, therefore the partnership
continued but the heir was only entitled
to her share of the income along with
her right of ownership in the property.
Evidence was easy to produce of similar
cases where a sole surviving partner
carried on the business of the partner
ship, without any participation by the
heirs of the dead partne- 10 the control
and management. They simply drew |
their share of the profits, while the |
partnership was perpetual until the or
binary procedure was adopted for wind |
ing it up.
Mr.. Parker's attorney also dwelt on
the absurdity of an employees resisting
dismissal by an employer. Warming
up he became denunciatory of the tao
tics employed by the respondent, going
CALI in characterizing q portion of the
other sides pleadings.
MIR. BALLOU REPLIES.
Mr.. Ballou followed in reply. He
spoke until adjournment, taking up the
various points offered by the plaintiff.
The speaker ridiculed the claim of an
everlasting partnership, asking how a
with dead man could be
held inviolable. Through her lawful
guardian in minority the heir in this
case might, at any time, demand a par
tition of the estate and winding-up
Of the partnership.
CARRIERS RETURN.
Mr. Carter early in the hearing filed
his return TO the summons. stating the
fact of his petition to the Third Circuit
Court for partition of the estate. A
the respondent pointed out the bad
state OF affairs that would be produced
by the granting of the injunction
against him, Mr. Parkers nominee M
Low, was at that very time
lbeying the injunction issued by Judge
Iadlngs la the partition suit of afiiant
lie was entirely refmlning from inter-
ferIng with the managom.nt ~ the
property NoW II ihe ariant Carter
We're similarly sniqlnei there would he
aohodY A an IN responsible control Of
Ihe Parker RAnph Prem lha polRl NJ
Garter saes pn as fallpNs sin a bis
laN az ma Hlsllan "a lha pafkef
haN,hi