The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1906-03-09
PEACOCK IS
SUMMONED
To Show Cause Why lie
Should Not Be
Enioined.

Peace again brooded over the Pea
cock premises last night, renewal OF
the parole having taken effect at p.
m There had been no unpleasantness
tended by Peacock, Andrew Brown
business hours, all of such incidents
mentioned in a petition for injunction
reported below having taken place the
previous day.
A petition for a temporary writ or
injunction, requiring Walter c. Pea
cock to show cause why he should not
be enJofned from acting or assuming
to act as manager of w. c. Peacock
& Co, Ltd, came before Judge Lind
say at o'clock yesterday afternoon
An order of appearance under the
writ had been issued by Judge Lind
say, on the petition of John G. Roth
well, in the morning and service by
the sheriff was waived by respondent s
attorney. A motion for continuance
made by C. w. Ashford for respond
ent was opposed by S. M. Ballou for
petitioner.
Mr.. Ashford. claiming the last word,
contended strongly that q summary
granting of the temporary injunction
would be neither equity nor justice
Mr.. Peacock was then in possession OF
the business premises. temporary
injunction would put him out and tnen
supposing the court found it had grant
ed the writ inadvertently, Peacock
would still be out until he managed in
a
respondent wanted time in which to
show cause, by due production Of
proofs, why he should not be ousted.
Judge Lindsay continued the hear
ing until 10 o'clock this morning.
Upon the premises the parole of both
sides, agreed upon for the first night
as reported in yesterdays Advertiser,
was continued last night by agree
ment.
Business continued yesterday the
same as on the first days investment
of the office by Peacock and his guard.
Mr.. Rothwen handles all the cash
without dispute, as there is no ques-
ton that he is the legally constituted
treasurer of the corporation.
In his petition Mr.. Rothwell sets
forth that he has been for many years
the manager of the corporation. He
goes on to tell of the invasion of the
office by Mr. Peacock on Wednesday.
saying he forced the lock of petition
er's desk. Peacock and his assistants
having thus taken possession, it is al
legged, attempted forcibly to eject E. A.
Mott-Smith, did so eject r. B. Ander-
son, forcibly prevented Alex. Garvie
from entering the Office and attempted
by force to eject c. S. Weight and 5.
M. Ballou.
1t is denied that Peacock is the man.
ager, and alleged that the purported
meeting of directors last November, at
which he was elected as such, was at
tended by Peacock, Andrew Brown
and T. f. Lansing. and that Brown
and Lansing were not then directors.
A bill in equity sworn to by Peacock
last October is quoted, in which it was
stated that Peacock. Brown, Weight
and Auerbach We're the directors.
1t is alleged that Peacock's intrusion
has brought the business practically
to a standstil1, in consequence of
which the corporation is suffering ire
parable damage. The prayer is that
decree be rendered commanding Pea
cock to desist from acting as manager
and interfering with Rothwell's man.
agement and that an order issue for
Peacock to show cause why, pending
a final hearing and decree, he and his
agents should not be enjoined
r. w. Breckons is associated with
c. w. Ashford as counsel for Peacock
in the general litigation of the Pea
cock company's disputes and aided
yesterday in the argument for a con-
tinuance