The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1895-05-08

retaining the proceeds. Held, this
was deceit and gross misconduct on
the part of the attorney, and he should
be dismissed from theroll of practition-
ers.
Held, financial embarrassment is no ex-
cuse 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 judg-
ment of the Court until the cases the
attorney has in Court are disposed Of
OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUDD, CO.
A rule to show cause was issued
by this Court on the 9th March last
on the information of the Attorney
General, against the respondent,
William @. Achi, an attorney of this
Court. The substantial facts Of this
matter are as follows:
On the 10Th March, 1891, one D.
Kealohapauole, with whom the res
pendent had been doing business,
wishing to raise some money, made
10 respondent q negotiable promis
sorry note for $500 payable in two
years with II per cent. interest.
Respondent not being able imme-
diately to negotiate this note, on the
same day Kealohapauole, at res
pondent's request, made another
note of like tenor to respondent and
executed q mortgage on his lands to
secure the same. The understand
ing was that the first note should be
destroyed. Thereafter on the Oath
April, 1891, respondent endorsed this
first note to Messrs. Allen 81 Robin
son for value and deposited the title
deeds of the property mortgaged
with them. This note had on the
margin Secured by mortgage of
even date herewith" Then res
pendent, on the 9th May, assigned
the second note and the mortgage
securing it to Henry Smith, trustee,
and received and retained the pro-
ceeds. Kealohapauole paid to res
pondent the interest on the note held
by Allen & Robinson. and on matur-
ity paid the principal to them, sup
posing that was the only note of his
outstanding. Henry Smith In April,
1893, the interest and principal on
the note held by him as trustee not
being paid. published notice of his
intention to foreclose. This being
brought to the. attention Of Kealoha-
pauole he paid the interest due and
thus avoided or postponed the sale
OF his property.
After the rule to show cause had
issued, the respondent paid tie
principal and interest of the note
and mortgage held by Mr.. Smith.
The respondent admitted before US
that the facts alleged in the informa
ton were true.
It is represented to us that res
pondent had bought real estate and
stocks to a large extent, which he
was unable to fully pay for, and
which he hoped would bring him
fortune, but subsequent depression
of values brought him into embar-
easements, end it was under this stress
that he committed the frauds con-
embezzlement and financial frauds
are committed by persons under
pressure of obligations that must be
met. This does not excuse or palli-
ate the offense. Negotiating this
note. which should have been can
celled or delivered up as soon as the
second one which took its place had
been signed was gross and deliber-
ate fraud. The payment of the |
second note negotiated, after the
fraud was brought to the notice Of
the Attorney General and the rule |
issued, though it makes good the |
persons deceived, does not excuse the !
offender. The public must be pro
tected against the preparation of !
such frauds by persons holding the |
honorable position of licensed practl- |
TONERS of this Court.
We are asked to suspend the ex- |
ecution Of our sentence until the |
respondents cases now pending are |
disposed of. But it is very uncer- |
tain how long period of time this |
may take, and we feel obliged to de-
cline the request. While DESTROYS Of |
protecting clients interests as far as |
possible, it is their misfortune to have |
employed an attorney capable OF such |
misconduct, and our duty to the gen
eral public as we'll as to respondents !
associates of the bar will admit of no |
compromise.
Under the authority given us by |
Section 1O66 of to be Civil Code |
(Compiled Laws page 312) by which
practitioners in this Court are sum-
marily amenable to it, and may be
fined, imprisoned or dismissed from
the roll of practitioners, for salts
factory cause upon the complaint OF
any party aggrieved by their NAL.
practice, or for non payment OF
moneys collected by them for private
parties, or for any deceit or other
gross misconduct, we adjudge the
respondent. William @. Achi, to be
guilty of deceit and gross misconduct
and order him dismissed from the
roll of practitioners, and to pay the
costs of these proceedings.
Acknowledgement Smith and his
Deputy Robertson for the prosecu- |
NIr a K;nnnu fn,. rnsnnndant