The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1905-02-03

1t is now matter of judicial record
that the recent crusade against drink
ing clubs was staggering blow to the
LIQUOR jobbing business of Honolulu
Seeley /. Shaw, head of a firm holding
a liquor jobbing license, testified to
that fact before Judge Robinson yes
terday afternoon.
The matter in court was that of the
dissolution of the partnership of S. 1.
Shaw e. Co, with questions of the re-
ownership and of the Hilo branch up
for adjudication. G. A. Davis and A.
NJ. Brown represented Mr.. Shaw, who
petitions to dissolve the partnership.
w. w. Thayer was present acting for
Mr.. Smith, attorney for ]. S. Canario,
the Hilo partner. Frank e. Thompson
receiver, appeared in person.
Mr.. Davis wanted to shut down the
Hilo business. including a saloon at
Olaa, forthwith. 1t came out in sort
Of running argument that SIG was lost
at HiIo and s255 at Olaa last year.
Mr. Thayer said arbitration was
pending. therefore he thought the bust
ness ought to remain in statu quo a
reasonable time,
IT offered to arbitrate myself, and
drew the papers," interjected Mr..
Davis. adding, They're trying to get
the jurisdiction away from this court. :"
Mr.. Thayer wanted to have the job
ber's license of the Arm, which expires
this month, renewed to preserve con-
tinuity of the business.
Mr. Davis objected to giving a credit
90 90 ha hro ral,
Mr.. Thompson stated that the request
for such a credit had already been de-
MED by him.
I'VE are making money here. We are
losing there. We want to stop it." Mr..
Davis said this. offering to produce an
unbroken line of authorities against
continuing a losing business in re-
ownership. II the business was to be
continued temporarily the credit should
be limited.
Mr.. Thayer opposed the closing Of
the Olaa saloon and advocated the
sending of supplies from the firms Ho-
nolulu store to Hilo.
Mr.. Thompson, answering the courts
question, said the wholesale depart
ment showed a profit. This did not
through his counsel, that the firm was
losing there.
Mr.. Shaw. however. was put on the
witness stand. Examined by Mr..
Brown he said the firm had held it's
1obber's license for three years. The
Territorial fee was $500, the Federal
S125 a year. AS up to Dec. 81 last
separate accounts were not kept. it
was impossible to say definitely wheth-
er the wholesale or the retail business
had made a profit. But competition
was 30 keen that profits in the whole.
sale business We're very small. The
5obber's license did not help the retail
business. He could import retail sup
plies direct from San Francisco just
as cheap. The retailers did not want
n middleman.
The jobber's business was very much
affected, Mr.. Shaw testified, by the
abolition of the liquor clubs around
town. He did not desire to have the
5obber's license renewed. BY dropping
that department the rent would be de-
creased S35 month.
Mr.. Shaw. cross-examined by Mr..
Thompson, said he knew by the prices
OF goods there could not be n profit in
the wholesale business, but he did not
know II as matter of figures. His
explanation of any apparent profit was
that the retail end was charged too
much for the goods. They carried
about $4,000 worth of stock for the re-