Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1906-03-09
OPPONENTS OLD POINT
Continued from PAGE n

ITOTV rage VI
was unsuccessful therein. lie Intends
to change the locks on the front doors.
but merely for the purpose of prevent.
ing unauthorized persons holding keys
from entering.
With regard TO the directors meet.
ing last November. at which Peacock
was elected manager. Peacock alleged
that Andrew Brown was q director de
facto and 7. +. Lansing one de lure.
The status of the board of directors
was gone into at length. Peacock dc.
MED that the business was practically
at n standstill on account OF his acts.
and stated that u there was any such
damage to the business II was attrib.
utahle solely TO the actions of Roth.
wei and his partisans. He admitted
that It was impossible to carry on the
bpsipess with both himself and Roth.
well acting as managers. and stated
that Rothwell had no right TO act as
such
Peacock further showed that Roth.
wells bill had not set forth sufficient
facts to constitute q case and especial.
b that he had not made a sufficient
showing TO entitle him to an injunction
" his remedy was a quo warranto pro.
Ceeding. Even II all the allegations
Of bill were true, the wrongs done
would have been wrongs against the
corporation and not against Rothwell.
Peacock asked that the bill for an in.
junction against him be dismissed.
Ballou opened the argument. urging
that the question OF the merits was i'm.
material at this stage. and as the an.
swer went into the merits Il was that
Tar immaterial. The necessity of the
hsuence of preliminary injunction
was the material question now, and
this was generally left to the dIscre.
hon OF the Court. II was also neces.
sary to determine what status should
be- preserved II there were two rival
claimants to the same office. Rothwell
had shown that II was necessary that
. temporary injunction should issue,
and also that Rothwell was the one
who should be In charge at present.
Ballou fortified his contention with
quotation OF numerous authorities to
show that the Court could grant an in.
ierlooutory injunction. preserving mat.
ters in statu quo merely to prevent
damage, but without In any way de.
Gliding on the merits OF the case.
Peacock, said Ballou, had in his an.
swer shown the rival claims of himself
and Rothwell to the managership and
only on this proposition should his an.
swer be considered. II was clear from
both the bill and the return that there
had been a plentiful use of force, and
that II would be impossible to carry
on the business during the rival mana.
gership. This showed the necessity
for a preliminary injunction, as Il dem.
onstrated that irreparable injury would
follow II matters went on as they were
nt the present time. The deadlock was
demonstrated by the fact that the safe,
wherein the valuable books were kept,
could not now be opened. Peacock did
not know the combination and the
Rothwell side, which had the combina.
ton. did not want to open the safe and
invite further aggresslveness. as II
did not wish to meet the physical force
Of Peacock's hired retainers by force,
being willing only to use enough force
TO retain possession.
Rothwell was admittedly the treas,
nrer and Weight the secretary, and the
attempt TO eject them had probably
been made In moment OF alteration.
Peacock was not In sole possession,