Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1905-11-04
PEACOCK Wolf IN
SLEEPS CLOTHING
Officers Company Deny
[es'gn to Pledge
Shares
SAY PEACOCK INTENDS
STARTING RIVAL FIRM
BOTToMLEY FILES AFFIDAVIT
THAT COMPLAINANT SAID TO
HIM mot ON YOUR
LIFE"

Returns have been filed by the de
PENDANTS in the case of w. c. Peacock,
7. +. Lansing, Andrew Brown and II
L. Auerbach VS.. w. G. Peacock & Co.,
Ltd, ct al, including the new officers
of the company, Of whom several are
connected with Bishop & Co. It 10
shown that Peacock ceased to be pres.
ident and director of the company Ser
TENDER Is, 1905; that he is about tc
engage in business as a wholesale liz
TOR dealer in competition with w. G
Peacock & Co, Ltd. and that he de
sires access to and control of the com.
panys books, stock, papers and effects
for the purpose of acquiring informa
lion which would be useful to him in
the conduct of rival business and to
enable him to act hostilely and detri
mentally to the firm. 7. F. Lansing,
Andrew Brown and X. l.. Auerbach, Il
IL shown. are not directors of the com
pany.
II is further shown that the capital
stock of the company consists of 1000
shares of 800 each, that all the shares
are paid up, and that $50 shares are
now owned by the company. On July
10. 1904. Bishop 4 Co. asked that the
$50 shares standing in the company's
name be pledged with them as collat
eral security for money advances.
This was declined but the bank still
advanced money, doing SO without se
curityr and the. defendants do not In
tend to pledge these shares to the
bank, and there is no intention on the
part OF the company to imperil any OF
its assets or to prefer one creditor to
another.
The return Is based on affidavits b,
J. G. Rotnwell, J. L. Cockburn. C.. 5
Weight, A. CARVE, A. w. 7. Bottomley,
L. A. Mott-Smith and Henry Holmes.
Bottomley shows in his affidavit
that in August, 1905, Peacock tried to
convince him that Rothwell was con
Quoting the business Of Peacock 4 Co.
In ruinous manner, and said that II
he was not removed, he, Peacock, had
100000 San Francisco capital to back
him and would go into business with
his brother Pete to compete with the
firm. Bottomley told Peacock that II
he had such capital behind him II
might be well for him to put II in Pes
cock Il Co. and thus regain the man
segment. Whereunto Peacock respon
ded: Not on your life."
Bottomley further shows that on
July 10, 1905, Bishop & Co. allowed
the firm an excess of Its overdraft de.
handing that the FIRMS $50 shares be
pledged to the bank as security there
FOR. This was denied and owing TO
changed circumstances the demand
was never made again. He states fur
ther that at the meeting of Sept 10 he
was elected auditor and director of the
company and as such he has no inten
ton to pledge the shares.
Rothwell in his affidavit shows that
On July 10, 1905, Bishop & Co. made
d request for certain security for q
temporary increase Of the firms over.
draft. The affiant asked Peacock to
advise him and he refused to comply
with the banks request, and thus
Rothwell notified Bottomley. Roth
well shows that the $50 shares are
now in his possession as treasurer and
be does not intend to pledge them to
Bishop & Co.
Rothwell further alleges that prev
.ous to Sept. Is Peacock had access to
the firms books and worked constant
iy on them, copying invoices and exam
lining personal accounts to such an ex'
tent that he interfered with the order
ly conduct of the company. A number
OF instances OF this interference are
related. and It Is alleged that Peacock
busted himself entirely in the collec,
ton of data which would be useful to
Inn in starting a rival business. After
the meeting Sept. Is Peacock was by
resolution denied access to the
books except on special permission by
the directors.
CARVE shows that at the Sept. 10