The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1904-12-09
FIGHT OVER
KONA SALE
Confirmation Is
For the Time
Held Up.

Judge Robinson late yesterday after
noon over the question of the confirm
alton of the sale of South Kona prop
erty under foreclosure in the suit OF
II. Hackfeld & Co.. Ltd, VS.. w. u
Achi Kapiolani Estate, Ltd, w. X,
Castle and ]. NJ. Monsarrat.
Mr.. wilmington, representing Mr..
Castle, attacked the report of the re-
ceiver. Franz Buchholtz, saying the
building Of the fence to make corral
for rounding up the stock on the
premises was unnecessary. He went
on to say that it was an unheard-of
proceeding to sell stock without CIV
ing information at the sale regarding
the number of animals, whether 1t was
one or a hundred head.
Mr.. Ashford, on behalf of kapiolani
Estate, took up the same objection OF
blind selling of stock and went on to
question If the best advantage had
been obtained by all concerned from
the sale as a whole. He was INFORMED
when in Kona some time ago, that 1t
was next to impossible to buy land in
that section. The land was held in
large tracts, most of it by that old
man of the sea, the Bishop Estate,
resting on the country's neck and ike
" to continue so doing for generations
to come"
Mr.. Cooper, representing the plain
tiff and petitioner, replied, maintain
ing that all the proceedings had been
conducted with utmost publicity ana
the contestants were themselves TO
blame for any lack of information UNI
der which they might labor. 1t was
contended that the court, in proceed
ings before the sale, passed upon all
of the objections now raised. Finally,
with the consent of the court. he pro-
ceeded to read the report of sale with
accompanying affidavits as to notice,
sufficiency of value realized, etc.
Messrs. Ashford and wilmington
Joined in objections to the documents
and when they were overruled noted,
exceptions Next they strongly opposed
the formal motion for confirmation of
the sale.
Mr.. Cooper argued that the case was
different from that of Silva VS.. Lopez,
as the mortgage here did not enumer-
ate the cattle, hence the wording of
the notice was exactly in conformity
with the terms of the mortgage. The
mortgage was general in its terms and
the sale likewise.
Mr.. wilmington warmly contended
that the price obtained was ridiculous
ly small, and represented it to be inn
proper that the sale should have been
made to an officer of the court mean
ing the receiver, who was the only
person having definite information of
the property that was sold.
Mr.. Cooper objected to any appear
ance for w. r. CT stle, as he had no
interest in the property sold. HIS
D, mortgage was of other land. There
was no surplus in question, the debt
being $4,000 and the realization $13,-
900, in round figures.
Judge Robinson was about to make
an order confirming the sale, when Mr..
wilmington asked IL that was to be
done without a hearing. In answer to
the court he said he had evidence to
put in If permitted.
The hearing was therefore extended
and Mr.. Cooper being called by Mr.
Wilmington, testified regarding the
circumstances of the sale.
Mr.. Monsarrat, who in the meantime
had formally protested against con-
firmation for the purpose of saving
his own rights, was next called. His
statement that Mr.. Buchholtz wrote to
him saying the property was worth
$4,000 was struck out, as not respon-
sive to the question of value at sale,
when he had explained that the letter
was written some years ago. However,
he testified his belief that the value
of the property at the time of sale was
at least double what it sold for.
At 5:25 Mr.. wilmington begged for
continuance of the hearing. saying he
had been on a jury case all day, be-
sides attending to several other mat
ters
perhaps the court is ready to rule"
Mr.. Cooper suggested, but, after some
conversation, the hearing was contin-
ued until p. m. Monday.
LAW OF EMBEZZLEMENT.
AN important point was peIOre ths
Supreme Court yesterday in the case
of Edward Vivian Richardson, charg-
ed with embezzlement as clerk of the
Honolulu Water Works. E. C. Peters
represented the Territory, and A. G. NJ.
Robertson the defendant. ~
Mr. Robertson commended, producing
authorities from different States, that
Richardson was not liable to indict-
ment under the statute referred to
therein, because there was no law that
made the clerk of the Water Works
bureau an official charged with, and
responsible for, the custody of public
money. A distinction was drawn be-
tween the general statute of embezzle-
ment and the provision in the Audit
Act under which Treasurer. w. H.
Wright was indicted. which declared