The Hawaiian gazette., 1871-02-08

post for costs in the Office of the Clerk Of th
Court, and that be has not moved in this matter
that on the contrary he went TO the island o
Kauai, where be has remained 10 the date o
making this complaint That in consequence o
this The said Mikalemi was obliged TO employ anc
pay other counsel, at the October term of thii
Court and that he had Furthermore TO pay the
sum of twenty FIVE dollars for Costs of Court.
The Respondents answer admits the receipt
Of the money as charged, but AYERS that he tOok
some steps in both the matters set forth in the
complaint; that then his duty called him to at
tend the Circuit Court on the Island of Kauai
and that whilst on Kauai for that purpose, q
death occurred in his family, there residing which
compelled him to stay with them.
The evidence Of the witness, Mikalemi, is, thai
the respondent was employed by witness as At
torney in an ejectment case versus one Lusu
that he demanded and received from witness $40
$50 for costs of court, $50 for his fee. Tia,
witness demanded the $50 back, bot that the
said Mahoe did not return the money. That wit
ness was obliged to employ G. B. Kalasukane
and R. II. Stanley. afterwards, to conduct his
case, as the respondent had left this Island with
out moving at all in this matter. That witness
had to pay s25 costs of court, besides the $50
paid the respondent for costs, who, in a letter
to witness. positively declined TO return from
Kauai to attend to the suit.
The records of the Court for the October term
showed that the case Of Mikalemi vs.. Duau was
dismissed, and that respondent was not Of counsel.
G. B. Kalaaukane testified that the respondent,
before leaving for Kauai requested him to attend
to Mikalemis case, but did not pay him any fee.
The evidence of Kalimaloloa, confirmed by
Alalia, was, that she had paid Mahoe S6l,-S50
costs Of court and the remainder for his services
to bring suit for the recovery of piece of land
from one Hama Kapea; that the suit was never
brought, and that Mahoe did not return the
money to her.
No evidence was presented for the respondent,
and the case was submitted without argument.
d. b. Mahoe, the respondent, pro Sc.
F. II. Harris, Deputy Attorney-General, for
the rule.
WIDEMANN, j.:
We find from the evidence, as well as from re-
spondent's admission, that be undertook the case
of Mikalemi that he did not perform his pro-
fessionsl duties, and that he received $50 for
costs of Court, which he converted to his own
use. We find, further, that in the second case
of Kalimaloloa, respondent also neglected to
perform his professional engagements, and that
he converted the money received from his client,
under false pretenses, to his own use. Both
cases satisfy us that the respondent is guilty of
neglect of his professional duties, malpractice,
and deceit Every such case deserves the highest
censure, aud renders it impossible to allow the
person guilty of such ofienses to retain the hon.
orable position of q practitioner-at-law. The
least that the Court can do in such a case is to
relieve the community from the liability of being
imposed on by practitioner of this character,
and to sustain the good name of the law By re-
moving from it any member who is willing to
bring such disgrace upon its reputation.
1t is therefore ordered, adjudged and consider
ed, that Respondent be dismissed from the roll of
Practitioners-at-Law.
ELISHA II. AALEN,
Chief Justice.
ALFRED S. HARTwELL,
Ii. A. W1DEMANN,