The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1904-06-14
PARKER RANCH DISPUTE
TAKES A DAY IN COURT
Maeoon Argues That Sam. Parker Has Absolute
Control of the Property---Carter's
Historical Return.

All Of the court day before Judge
Gear yesterday was occupied with the
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
ment of the ranch. and from entering
or trespassing upon the premises. The
occasion was Carriers refusal to surren-
der the management of the property to
Eben P. Low. who was appointed as
manager by Mr.. Parker and went to
take the place.
AS already reported by the Adver-
tiser. Mr.. Carter brought suit, as guar
dian of Annie T. K. Parker, 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 Parkers suit here. Carter
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 Carter's part raised question
of jurisdiction in Parker's suit, but
though coming up in the pleadings it
had not been ruled on by Judge Gear
do
Plaintiff was represented at yester-
days hearing by j. Alfred Magoon and
J. Lightfoot, 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. M.
Ballou and P. Anderson of Hatch &
Ballou.
Mr.. Magoon argued for the petition
well into the afternoon. He laid great
stress on the contention that Samuel
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 partner in 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 or
the absurdity of an employees resisting
dismissal by an employer. Warming
up he became denunciatory of the tao
tics employed by the respondent. going
so far as TO use the adjective "diaboli-
car in characterizing a portion of the
other sides pleadings.
MR.. 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 al
everlasting partnership, asking how {
partnership with a dead man could b.
held invfolable. Through her Lawful
guardian in minority the heir in thi
case might, at any time, demand a par
tition of the estate and winding-ul
of the partnership.
CARRIERS RETURN.
Mr.. Carter early in the hearing file
his return to the summons. stating tn
fact of his petition to the Third Circui