The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1862-09-25

not in the light of a loan, and he replied, perhaps it might be
declaration that respondent had attempted to bride him a. that
Montgomery. that he had given Vincent $500. 1 never told
it TO Mr.. Bates as associate Counsel, for l did not know what TO
S1 A.: II n and Az L pde Gs mo nor =" for 1t it. T. I Do ., remep,5eT tbs ~ there her
,aWtN ~ oil III ms 800 a. oO 80
has been any discussion with the Counsel and respondent about
the $500 or the $1,000"
Mr.. Montgomery's testimony was as follows
~"soncitor Montgomery testifes that Mr.: Davis did not use
any expressions in conversation with hun thai Vincent could be
induced tsgive evidence either on one side o r the other, by any
valuable consideration but the impression let on his mind was
thai as vincent had talked about getting nan OF fnuioa' ana as
the respondent told him so, rs well as Mir. Davis, and hs re-
some shape or way a sum which Mr.. paws thought might oper-
cent cent being induced To dsyiat n1 from oo ~, ,per truth TSS wti nbN from Mr.
Bates statement, were on respondent : side of the ease. Sol
the impressions he had derived from Mr.. Davis. He stated to
his client that it appeared to him that Vincent expected some
and he thought 81 1000 was the inducement TO which the re
spondent replied-I have paid that man $500, and I cam, af-
Solicitor Montgomery says he expressed surprise at this
cause Of this idea in the mind Of the Solicitor that Vincent was
not stated that Vincent wanted $1,000 for his testimony, and
whether the respondent was not a fool not to give it. lie re-
piled that his client had given $500, as he said, and which he
had no reason to doubt, and that increasing the sum was not in
creasing the offence. and that he had. said joculariy, that he
might as well go the whole hog He denies explicitly that he
ever advised respondent Montgomery TO make the overture,
The witness further says That when he said ut the inter
view of the counsel and client, Il can't stand that, Robert 1
was under the impression that Mr.. Davis meant to convey a
ject of his interview with Vincent end 1 did not refer TO the
Statement of II oOo being dennsited with Mr. Davis for Vincept's
pany him to Mr.. Dayis's house for the purpose of having Mr..
Davis correct what he thought was unjust toward him, in the
statement made by Mr.. Davis IN Mr.. Bates office, which L I'M
derstood to DE a denial that had communicated any thing to me
about Vincent, and the 5; 1000, so much talked about. The in
terview was had, and explanations made and whatever misun-
Outstanding existed in relation to the ofero of $1,000 was removed
by Mr.. Davis by the declaration that the proposition did not
come from Mr.. Vincent, to which Mr.. Montgomery replied
from Mr.. Vincent"
The evidence which has been quoted above is
sufficient to show that there was an attempt TO
su6olne Mr.. Vincent's testimony. IF there was
an attempt, it was made by some one, and the
decision of the Chief Justice exonerates Mr..
Davis and also Mr.. Vincent. The onus there
fore must fall on bis colleage, who said she
might as well go the whole hog" The COM
ments of the Chief Justice on him are severe:
"When Solicitor Montgomery made known to his client the i'm
pressions he had derived from Mr.. Davis, that Vincent expected
mony, and he thought $1,000 was that inducement, his client
stated to him that he had given Vincent $500, and could not af-
inality of the offence of bribery, whether the sum was more or
less, it was his imperative duty to have denounced such conduct.
1t was not an occasion to be jocular, or for a counsellor of the
Court to indulge in trifing remarks upon this the most serious
of all subjects Connected with proceedings in a Cour, of Justice.
1t is, indeed, trifing with serious things. 1t is the duty of
Counsel to aid in the lnyesttgation OF a suit, and i TO keep the
not for a moment entertain a discussion of the morality of Civ
1t is corruption itself and the man who would receive money
to tell the truth would receive money to tell a falsehood, AMI
bar. and the Court do not believe that he would seriously
entertain, or advise a client to entertain, a proposition of this
The Chief Justice very properly makes the
out as favorably as the circumstances admit,
Or the charge appears not to have been fully
proven against him and it is a rule in law that
he accused is entitled to the benefit of any
,xisting doubts. So far as the law and the
courts are concerned, Mr.. Montgomery escaped
but the public have the right of
urymen in this as in every case, and must be
Flowed to judge from the above evidence whether
he did or did not $50 the whole hog"
Here was a bold attempt to bride a witness in
suit in the highest court of the kingdom.
And we'll does the Chief Justice say regarding it:
.The honor of the Bar must be sustained by an upright
or the course of legal Investigation will be liable to be
impure, and dangerous to the rights of parties. Should a case !
e made out Off violation of this principle, it would be the
operative duty of the Court to strike the name Of the offender
,om the ROLE
This is not the first attempt that has been made
o degrade our courts, or that the conduct of
he gentleman has attracted public attention,
nd met n public rebuke. In the settlement
f the estate of n. T. Turner, who died on Kau-
i some years since, the authority of the court
vas so far set at defiance, that notice of attach
nent was given to Mr.. NJ. acting as administra-
or of the estate, if the Judgment of the Court
'as not peremtorily complied with, and the
mount tt at issue $4,000 or SOY handed in. Judge
decision openly charged a dereliction
f duty, as instanced in the following:
:" This is a peculiar case, and demands the strctest scrutiny.
r. Montgomery was doubiy clothed with a fduciary character
at once the surviving partner and administrator of MIR.
nrner. His position in sustaining, in his own person, these
verse characters, while the heirs at law of Mr.. Turner reside
a foreign land was peculiarly calculated 10 touch and awaken
suggestions of self interest. unconsciuusly, it might be, to
mself. Under these circumstances he became the purchaser
the property, through the intervention of a third party. No
Sc ever came more fairly within the reason of the rule than the
resent, and it must be dealt with accordingly" = =
- L think there is no doubt that, in every case where an adj
illustrator having surplus funds in his hands, has mixed up
ose funds with his own, so as to derive tlerefrom an increased :
mount of credit, or has used them in any way so as to gain in
tie and where 1t does not appear that the money has been
pit separate from that of tn administrator. ready to be paid
it. and tie rule applies that he ought not to derive any adj
ntage to himself from the trust property. (See Haslar rs.
lslar, i Bradfori's Rep. 252; Ogilvie !. 0gilvie. in. 85s;
cke as. Hart, II Neseys Rep, 59) In the present case, It r
pears that the administrator has had a considerable balance
his hands ever since the sale Of the estate to Mr.. Hofschlaeger
d even before that time, and | do not see any great force in
argument that, because no one here was at that time au-
Irisel to represent the heirs at law, he cannot be charged with
crest. If the administrator wished to relieve himself from
funds into Court. L think the great question is, has he used
funds himself? II so. he must he charged with interest and
onus is upon the administrator to show that he has not
le so. l think he is liable, beyond a question, for interest s
m the 9Th of November at least"
We have thus adverted to these cases, not :
Din any personal feelings, but because it is the ;
Ity of the press to speak openly the public :
ice, especially in cases affecting the purity and !
.nding of our courts and to show that, while I
T judges contend for justice, there are opposing ,
~aracters to deal with. If bribery and ,
idelity of trusts are permitted, or passed
htly over, if attorneys can take to themselves t
: liberty of rising before the Chief Justice, rs [
4