The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1909-07-31

The question of whether refunding
bonds are subject to the payment of
considered merely as substitutes for the
original issue and subject therefore, to
the payment of only one dollar stamp
when fled in the office of the bureau
of conveyances has been carried to the
Supreme Court for an answer The
question comes up through the appeal
of the Oahu Railway & Land Company
from the assessment by Treasurer
Conkling of stamp duties amounting to
5000 on an issue Of bonds of the total
amount of $2,000,000, bearing interest
at six per cent, the bonds being turn
ed over to W. F. Frear and Robert w.
Atkinson as the holders of mortgage
to secure the original bond issue.
Under the law, the Treasurer is al
lowed to file statement of his side
of the case. Treasurer Conkling has
dNdlieu u1AhoS1I VI bA4o A1Sht, anu INC
Territory will rely upon this state
ment, which in it's essential features,
is as follows, and which sets forth the
essential facts in the case:
'.The appellant, Oahu Railway &
Land Company, corporation organized
and existing under and by virtue of
the laws of the Territory of Hawaii,
on the first day of July, 1909, pre-
sented to the Registrar of Public Ac-
counts for stamping a certain docu-
ment, and the said Registrar being, in
doubt, referred the matter to the
Treasurer of the Territory for assess
ment of the proper stamp duty on said
first day of July.
'FSaid appellant, on January i, 1897,
executed a certain trust mortgage to
secure a certain issue of bonds of the
total amount of $2,000,000, bearing in
terest at the rate of six per cent per
annum and due on the first day of
January, 1927. The trustees at pres
emit holding under said mortgage are
Walter F. Frear and Robert W. At
kinson.
Said appellant, on June 26, 1909,
gave notice by advertisement in the
Pacific Commercial Advertiser that the
entire issue of bonds at that time out
standing would be redeemed on July
/. 1909, at the office of the company
in Honolulu. The same advertisement
contained notice signed by William
G. Irwin as underwater of the new
bond issue, stating that in accordance
with the agreement between the I'M
derwriter and the company, holders OF
the outstanding Issue Of bonds might
exchange them for bonds Of the new
issue, paying premium Of one per
cent, or might receive cash and ac-
erued interest at five per cent by pre-
senting the outstanding bonds at the
banking house of Claus Spreekels &
Company within a certain period.
CON June 20, 1909, special meet
ing of the stockholders of said appel
liant company was held at the office of
the company in Honolulu, at which
the stockholders voted to ratify the
action Of the Board of Directors in
calling in the outstanding bond issue
and in contracting for the issue and
of new bond issue for
the old bond issue and also
voted to ratify the authorization OF
the issue of five per cent bonds for
The purpose of refunding the old is
sue and authorized the execution of
the instrument heretofore referred to
for securing the new bond issue.
From the proceeds of the sale of
the new issue of five per cent bonds
the old issue of six per cent bonds is
to be paid and cancelled. The privi-
ege of exchanging bonds of the old
issue for bonds of the new issue is ex-
tended to the holders of said old issue
upon payment of premium of one per
cent in addition.
son the 1st day of July, I assessed
the stamp duty on said document mark
ed Exhibit A, at the sum of So
9s9, basing such duty upon the sum
IF money, to-wit, $2,000,000, for which
the franchise, rights of way, lands and
other property referred to in said !
document and in the trust mortgage
dated January /, 1897, and recorded in !
the Office of the Registrar of Convey |
ances in Honolulu, in Liber 166, pages
zfS-zoS, 10 WHICH le1eiSHce 10 LII sd1u
document made, are held as security
by the parties of the second part in
said document named under the cove
nant by them made to stand seized
thereof for such purposes.
"On the 22nd day OF July, 1909, said
appellant paid to me said sum of $3.50
so assessed and deposited with me the
sum of so for costs of appeal to the
Supreme Court and filed with me
Notice of Appeal and appeal to said
court, claiming that the stamp duty on
said document should be assessed at
the sum of 81, on the theory that said
document Is an aoreament only -