The Independent. [volume] (Honolulu, H.I.) 1895-1895, 1895-05-03
COURT RECORD
Attorney w. G. Achi
Disbarred.
Other Decisions of the Court.

A unanimous opinion of the
Supreme Court has been rendered
in the matter of w. 9. Achi, an
attorney at law, 1t is writt,n by
Chief Justice Judd finds the res-
pendent guilty of deceit and gross
misconduct, aud orders him dis
missed from the roll of practi-
TONERS and to pay the costs of
the proceedings. The following
syllabus decision explains the
nature of the case: "An attorney
of this court took a negotia BILE
promissory note Of a client. Not
being able to negotiate the note,
the attorney. on the same day,
took another note of like tenor
and the amount which the clients
secured. by mortgage, on the under
standing that the first note should
be destroy ed. The attorney nego-
tiated the first note for value, and
thereafter negotiated the second
note unassigned the mortgage,
retaining the proceeds. Held. this
was deceit ana gross miscon-
duct on the part of tie attorney
! and he should be dismissed from
.he roll of practitioners.
Held, financial embarrass-
ment is no excuse for dishonesty.
Held, the settlement of the
second note negotiated, after the
rule to- show cause issued, does
not mitigate his offense.
"The court declines to suspend
the judgement of the court until
The cases the attorney has in court
are disposed off,
Attorney General w. o. Smith
and Deputy Attorney General A.
G. M. Rob- rtson for the prosecu-
lion; w. A. Kim ey for res
[ ondent.
In the case OF Elizabeth Moor
head VS.. David Dayton, trustee,
and others, bill to enforce u trust,
Judge Cooper has rendered de-
cision dismissing the bill with
costs taxed against the plaintiff,
lie find She mot eltitled to
income from the rent Of. the Cri.
terion saloon, as she claimed
under the. will of the late John
McColgan. A, S. Hartwell fol-
plaintiff; Carter and Kinney fol
defendant.
Judge Cooper has rendered
decision on the bill for instruc-
tions of John T.. Warehouse,
Henry Waterhouse and William
Waterhouse, executors of the will
OF the late John Waterhouse vs.
Mary Rice, w. w. Dimond and
Henry Dimond. The principal
question presented was whether q
trust had been created by the
will, and the court says if it had
it would be found in the will and
not in the codicils. The will is
quoted. and the court sees "that
there was no devise to the execut-
ors for the purpose of carrying
out any specific trust, but they
were given power to carry on the
mercantile business of the tesla
tor, and to sell any Of the lands
except those specifically devised
No special limit of time is placed
upon this power. So far as the
will is concerned it is to go on ol
all time unless it is to be confined
to the lifetime OF the testator' {
wife 1t seems to me that thil
was the real intent of the tesla
tor, and if it were not so the pro-
vision would be void as being
against the rule for the preven-
ton of perpetuities, The tesla
tors wife having died before him
the trust never arose. Having ar
rived at this conclusion l mus,
find that the complainants holt
the estate simply for the purpos
of administrations. -
Hartwell for complainants
Hatch and Kinney for respond
ents.
Immediately upon the render
ing of the decision the Messrs
, Waterhouse perfected an appea