Polynesian., 1862-09-20
Ghe polpl1esian.
SUPREME COURT-In Equity.
ISAAC MONTGOMERY Us. DANIEL MONTGOMERY.
IcONCLUDED.l

coNCLUDED.l
Solicitor Montgomery testiies that MIR. Davis did
not use any expressions in conversation with him
that Vincent could be induced to give evidence either
one side or the other, by any valuable considera-
ton but the impression left on his mind that
Vincent had talked about getting half of Puuloa,
and as the respondent told him So, well Mr..
Davis, and his remarks in relation to hard times,
inferred that s. 900 in some shape way
sum which Mr. Davis thought might operate
Vincent's testimony. He felt there a risk of
Vincent being induced to deviate from the truth,
which, from Mr.. Bates statement, were on Respon-
dents side of the case. S,licitor Montgomery then
made communication to his client, of the impress
sions he had derived from Mr.. Davis He stated to
his client that 1t appeared to him that Vincent ex
peced some inducement to keep him on the right
track in his testimony, and he thought 81 900
the inducement; to which the respondent replied
/" have paid that man $500, and can't afford it,
Solicitor Montgomery says he expressed surprise
at this These remarks of Mr. Davis were
undoubtedly the cause Of this idea in the mind of
the Solicitor that Vincent was open to a bribe. The
Solicitor was Intercepted whether he had not
stated that Vincent wanted 900 for his testimony
and whether the respondent was not a fool not to
give it. He replied that his client had given $500,
rs he said. and which he had no reason to doubt,
and that increasing the sum not increasing the
offence, and that he had said jocularly that he
might well go the whole hog He denies ex-
picity that he ever advised respondent Montgomery
to make the overture.
The witness further says: That when he said
at the interview of the counsel and client, can't
stand that, Robert, under the impression that
Mr.. Davis meant to convey denial that he had made
any communication to me the subject of his in
terview with Vincent, and l did not refrr to the
statement of s 900 being deposited with Mr.. Davis
f,r Nincents benefit. Mr.. Montgomery says he de-
sired Mr. Bates to accompany him to Mr.. Davis's
house, for the purpose of having Mr.. Davis correct
what he thought MUST toward him, in the state
ment made by Mr.. Davis in Mr. Bates office, which
l understood to be denial that he had cemmunica-
ted anything to about Vincent and the 81 900,
SO much talked about This interview was had, and
explanations made, and whatever misunderstanding
existed in relation to the offer of 900 removed
by Mr. Davis by the declaration that the proposition
did not come from Mr.. Vincent, to which Mr.. Mont
gomery replied: Yes, it was named to me by you,
but not named as coming from Mr.. Vincent" "
The first question which arises is, whether any of
the facts disclosed create doubts as to the truth of
the testimony of Mr.. Vincent for if man has ac-
cepted or offered accept a bribe his evidence can
have weight with the Court unless fully sustained
by the reliable witnesses, or by circumstances
of the strongest character.
That Solicitor Montgomery made this impression
on the mind of his associate counsel Mr. Bates is
undeniable. But, had he any ground for entertain
ing such opinion of Mr. Vincent. Mr. Davis at
tempted to have conversation with Mr. Vincent in
relation to his knowledge of the facts involved in this
case, and of the character of the testimony which he
would give, but he studiously avoided it. The in
PRODUCTION to the conversation is not material al
though, it may be remark ed, that it more Ma
sonic in its tone and than professional. 1t
appears that they early friends, and that they
entered upon very free conversation on their pri-
yate affairs, of their business of their personal
dition. Mr.. Vincent said his business poor and
times hard. In the course of the conversation
he said that the respondent had stated to him if he
wanted a 81 900 to use he would let him have it,
Thereupon MIR. Solicitor Montgomery inters that he
wants money for his testimony, and states to the
respondent who communicates it 10 Mr.. Bates. But
when this understanding of Montgomery is cOmmu-
nicated to Mr.. Davis, he Indignantly rrpudiates it.
and says that no such intimation had been given by
! Vincent. The question arises, then, has not Mr.
DAVIS made different statements of the same transac
| ton: He denies emphatically that Vincent had Of
tered him his testimony for 81 900 when the
versation was had between the counsel and respOn-
dent, Solicitor Montgomery says that from Mr.. Davis
account of the interview he inferred that Vincent
wanted a consideration for his testimony, and that
| 81 900 would be the inducement. The deductions
made by Solicitor Montgomery not logical. In
a private c"nvertation with old friend, man may
be permitted Ia talk of his and his misfOr
| tunes without being thought To have made an i'm
piled overture of money for his testimony.
! The accosnt given by Mr.. Vincent and Mr.. Davis,
under oath, of the interview is. perhaps near in
| conformity as is usually made They agree in all
the material points of the conversation, with the
| ceptiOn of an appeal made by Mrs. Montgomery,
wife OF complainant, to the estate for them; and
my own view is from very careful examination of
this testimony that The testimony of Davis has been
consistent with the declarations made by him to his
associate counsel. Mr.. Montgomery drew differences
which were not legitimate and there is prupriety
that Mr. Davis should be amswerable for them There
is certainly ground for the opinion that Davis had
changed his version of the conversation, to shield
| Vincent from the charge Of having made overtuFes
/ for his testimony.
In connection with this discussion upon Mr. Davis
testimony, 1t is well to recur Vincents, for the
purpose OF testing its accuracy and truth. He had
the title of the estate T about lsiX) years, and
had charge of the business for about four His buoks
give clear history of the transactions of the PuuOa
| Estate. His memory is sound and retentive as
could be expected OF events which transpired long
ago. He has answered freely and fully every -ques-
/ ton which has been put to him. His settlement
with his que trust have been entirely
satisfactory. His regard for the sacrednesS of the
trust by providing for it in his WILL made especially
| for that purpose, was highly honorable to him. l
act of his III this whole Transaction, of trick
arhce to retain the estate, obtain any interests
rights adverse the cesui que trust. He had the
fullest confidence of the complainant, judging from
the time and the in which he held the estate,
for he had repeatedly urged him to take a reconvey-
ance. In his tone and manner on the stand, he has
| not exhibited any partiates, but throughout has
given full, free and frank statements, upon all mat
upon which he has been so eaborately iIterro-
gated. His testimony has, in many instances, been
sustained by collateral evidence, and is consistent
with ITSELF His administration of the trust was
honorable to him a of business and n faithful
fuhment OF its sacred obligations and in my own
view, his testimony is worthy of full credit Tor
honesty of intention and for great accuracy can
usually be given TO which transpired so many
| years ago.
When Solicitor Montgomery made known to his
client the impressions he had derived from Mr. Da-
Wis, that Vincent expected some inducement to
keep him on the right track in his testimony, and
he thought 81 1000 was that inducement, his client
stated to him that he had given Vincent $500, and
could not afford to give more; instead of discussing
the comparative erminality of the offence of bribery,
whether the sum was more or less, it was his impe-
rative duty to have denounced such conduct. 1t
occasion 70 be incular for eounsellar of