The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-05-23
I submit this case with these com
ments.
DECISION OF THE COURT. \


Frank Thompson argued the reverse
of the position at some length, and
then the court delivered the following
opinion:
Tn the Circuit Court of the First Ju-
dicial Circuit, Island of Oahu, Ter
ritory of Hawaii-May Term, A. d.
1901-In the matter of L.. A. Thurs
ton.
DECISION.
The constitutions of the most civiliZ-
ed States provide that any person in
either a criminal or civil proceeding
may appear and be heard either by
himself or by counsel, or by both. In
order that counsel may properly and
in the fullest sense discharge the du-
ties which he owes to his client and
which he owes to the court, he is en-
titled to receive without reserve the
confidence of his client.
The relation of attorney and client
is among those designated by the law
as privileged, and such communications
as are made by the one to the other,
within the scope of the attorneys en-
ployment, are treated as confidential
communications, and may not be di
vuIged by the attorney, save with the
express consent of his client.
There are of course other relations
which the law eSteemS as confidential
and there are other communications
which the law regards as privileged
comrnunica lions. as, for instance, com
munications made by the husband to
the wife; those are among the com
munications which the law regards as
privileged. in order that that conf
dence which happily flows from state
of conjugal felicity may not be inter-
rupted. Statements made by the wife
to the husband (and vice versa) are
held to be privileged communications.
1t is essential not only to the protection
of the client, but to the proper and
due administration of justice, that no
limit should in any case be placed up
on this privilege (which the attorney
and client enjoy in legal contempla-
ton The lawyer is the counsellor of
both the knave and the dupe; to him
the murderer'S secrets are laid bare,
and amidst tears and sobs he hears the
plant of the distressed.
But how far does the rule go? That
is the question to be determined in
every case. First, the relation of at
torney and client must exist, must be
established. The authorities hold that
it is not necessary that a retainer
should have passed from the attorney
to the client, or that fee should have
been paid. or that contract for the
payment Oh d lee SHOulu nave ACTUALLY
been entered into; but there must be
the status of attorney and client, and
such status must exist
Now, what are the facts In this case?
It appears that the Grand Jury on the
18th day of May last had under in
vestigation charges of bribery against
certain members of the Legislature,
whose names were unknown, and as
far as the court has knowledge are
still unknown. The respondent Thurs
ton was summoned before the Grand
Jury to testify in relation to said mat
ter, and he did testify, as follows:
THE only matter | have heard was
from a client of mine, and | do not
feel disposed to use his name without
his consent. He has stated to me that
three members of the Legislature had
demanded money of his client before
they would give support to his bill.
Money was paid by my client to an
officer of the Legislature for his aid
to the bill 1 am. obliged to decline to
give you the name of my client, Or to
diyulge to you what his statement was
to me, believing that as counsellor l
am privileged to so decline, and also
decline to state to you which bill my
client was interested In