The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1908-04-22
BANKRUPTCY AND
ACCOUNT BOOKS
The First Trial by Jury of a
Proceeding in Bank
ruptcy.

The first bankruptcy case ever trleo
before a jury in the United States Dis
trict Court for Hawaii, occupied the
attention of Judge Dole and a jury
practically all day yesterday and seems
only fairly commenced. The proceed
ing is the involuntary bankruptcy OF
the Kauai Wine & Liquor Company
with its principal place of business at
Waimea, on the petition of the Homo
| lulu Brewery, and Lovejoy & Co. 1t
/ is alleged in the petition, which was
| filed early in March, that for four
months prior to that the Kauai con-
Germ was insolvent and during that four
months had committed acts of bank
ruptcy by making payments to w. c..
Peacock & Company intended to make
that concern a preferred creditor. A.
G. M. Robertson represents the petit
TONERS and c. W. Ashford the respond
emit.
In the examination of jurors on their
voir dire Robertson asked them if they
were Interested lIlG DQSIA1SSS u 1A1~
Kauai company or OF Peacock & Com
pany, and Ashford asked them if they
were stockholders in the Honolulu
Brewery. When he asked w. W. Hall
that question there was a visible smile
in the court room. Without a great
deal of trouble the following twelve
men were found, none of whom had
any interest in the Kauai concern,
Peacock & Co, or the brewery, and
knew of no reason why they could not
be impartial jurors: A. J. Gonsalves.
William G. Walker, E. A. r. Ross, FL
mer E. Conant, William W. Hall, Ru-
dolph NJ. Duncan, r. w. Bell. William
H. Shipman, w. A. Hardy, George G..
Fuller, William c. Wilder and Henry
Louisson.
Then Robertson called on Ashford
for the Kauai company's books in ac-
cordance with notice to produce them
served on him over a week before.
Ashford declined to produce them and
said he hadn't even tried to have them
here; that the notice was no good and
that a subpoena duces tecum should
have been served on the officers of the
company if the books were wanted:
but even suggested that if there had
been a subpoena and it had not been
obeyed the only result would have been
to permit the petitioners to offer Sec
ondary evidence of their contents. Rob
ertson maintained that the respondent
being in court and within the jurisdic-
ton of the court, a subpoena wasn't
necessary, but that the notice was suf-
ficient; and that if the books were not
produced in response to the notice, that
the order for jury trial be vacated,
and the case proceed before the court
without a jury. Judge Dole said the
question was an important one and
that he might decided it right he would
take a recess until two o'clock.
Apparently during the recess Judge
Dole read the bankruptcy act, for
when court reconvened he pointed out
that the statute itself provided that if
the respondent IN an involuntary bank
ruptcy proceeding failed to produce it's
books, the burden of proof was on it
to prove it's solvency.
So the case proceeded, the respond
ent failing to produce it's books, being
practically adjudge bankrupt, unless it
could prove that! it was not.
The case is being stubbornly contest
ed on every point. It will proceed this
morning.