The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1906-05-22

ACT CASE
Schuman Carriage Co.
Loses-.J. H. Coney
Censured.

BY unanimous opinion the Su
pr.-rnc Court decides in favor of tn
, plaintiff, reversing a Circuit Cour
judge. in the case of Hawaiian Car
riage Manufacturing Co., Ltd, VS.
:, Schuman Carriage Company, Ltd
Thompson & Clemens appeared TO
plaintiff, and S. b. Kingsbury and A
S Humphreys for defendant. Justice
Hartwell writes the opinion, the sylla
bus OF which reads thus:
The plaintiff and the defendant
agreed upon the purchase of the stool
in trade of another company under
an option obtained by the plaintiff. GER
tain of the stock, including vehicles
being taken by the defendant, and the
rest, including rubber tires, by the
plaintiff the defendant was to turn
over to the plaintiff for five years its
trade in certain of the articles bought
not including vehicles and be allowed
as commissions one-half of the profits
on rubber tires which it was not to
sell at prices less than those set by
the plaintiff while the plaintiff was
not to sell during the five years new
imported vehicles. Held: The agree
ment was good at common law, its
main object being not TO restrain the
trade or prevent the competition OIL
either party and it was not Illegal
under the provisions of the Antitrust
Act of July 2, 1890, applicable to Ter
ritories.
| 1.-The agreement, not being void or
Illegal. was not ultra wires and was not
an abrogation of corporate functions.
Although averments of agency, part
nership or fduciary relations, averred
in the bill. are not shown by the
agreement and the bill does not suffi-
GENTLY aver mutual accounts a case
for accounting it shown. Sec. 1884,
r. L.
CONEY IS CENSURED.
J. Fl. Coney receives censure from
the Supreme Court in the matter of his
guardianship of Isaac Kaiu, minor.
This is on an appeal by Kaiu from an
order of Judge Hardy allowing the
final accounts and discharge of appel
lant's guardian. The guardian charg-
ed himself with s1565.40 and asked to
be allowed $2363.43, leaving a balance
due him of $79S03. TT is the order of
TIE SO'tIl lIS uSIiSlolI COISiuOSo,
that the guardian be surcharged with
s567.5S and that in other respects the
decree be affirmed
Justice Wilder is author of the opin-
ion which is unanimous. j. Lightfoot
appeared for Kaiu and w. T. Rawlins
for the guardian. The syllabus reads
as follows:
Guardians should file annual ac-
counts.
"A guardian may be allowed a rea-
sonable sum for the maintenance of his
ward, to be paid to the mother, which
in this case is fixed at SIS month.
"a guardian will be surcharged with
expenditures not shown to have been
reasonably necessary
"a guardians commissions may be
reduced for neglect of duties.''
The guardians payment of 500 u
month to the wards mother was not
approved by the circuit judge. While !
the Supreme Court says it is beyond
its comprehension why the guardian
should buy q horse for his ward, it al |
lows the item simply and solely for |
the reason that the ward still mas the |
horse or the proceeds of its SALE
OF its own motion the court directs !
attention to a few things in regard to |
the handling of the estate. The guard |
ian was derelict in not rendering |
annual accounts. 1t is regarded as |
certainly very strange that there |
dc not appear any receipts for the year |
1907 In several instances the guard |
ian allowed the tax payments to be-
come delinquent and then sought to
charge the ward With the amount of |
the penalties, which is not correct" 1t
Certainly looks queer" the court says,
that the guardian did not explain why
10 income was ever received from
and in Honolulu on which he paid
axes. In conclusion the opinion says:
Guardians should be held strictly to
account and not allowed to play fast
md loose with the property of their
wards.
HITS HIM AGAIN.
Another roast is given to Coney on
<aiu's appeal from an order discharg-
hg him as administrator de bonis non
# the estate of S. Kaiu, deceased In
his matter be is surcharged with
5000. Justice Wilder writes the
curtis opinion, and counsel are the
anne as in the guardianship case The
paid claims that were
lot made according to law. There was
supplementary account of May 4,
905. showing expenditures of nearly
soc paid in 1900 and 1902. which the
curt says looks very fshy. in view ,
= the fact that the petition sworn to
y the administrator and filed on
Iarch Is, 1905, purports to give Il de-
allied statement of receipts and eX- !
enditures down to that date" The ,
yllabus of opinion is as follows:
In the absence of exceptional cir :
an administrator should
lind up an estate in about eight
Ionths.
An administrator viii be charged (
nth expenditures not shown to have :
cen reasonably necessary.
An administrator is not authorized |
| I
La