The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-05-23
HAD D1vuLaED CONTAMINATION

1t is plain from the most casual
reading of Thurston's statement before
the Grand Jury, that if any communi-
cation was made to him by his client
of privileged character, that he di-
yulged it to the Grand Jury. The priv
ilege was broken down when he repeat
ed to this Grand Jury the communica-
lions which had been made to him by
his client. A man cannot go into a
court or into a Grand Jury room ana
say my client told me this and my
client told me that, and then decline
to give the name of the client. He
should in the first instance have Civ
en- the name of the client, and then
have declined to divulge any statement
which the client had made to him.
Thurston has taken just the reverse
of his correct legal position before the
Grand Jury; he has made statement
l-of a privileged communication from an
alleged client before the Grand Jury,
and now, when called upon to give the
name of his client, which under the
authorities is not privileged, ne decllnes
to do so.
The matter was reported to the court
on the 18th day of May aforesaid, and
thereupon the court instructed the
Grand Jury to send for Thurston
again. and to require him to divuige
the name of the client and formulate,
if ne desired to do so. his reasons in
writing for not answering such inter-
rogatories might properly be pro
pounded to him by the Grand Jury.
In obedience to those instructions of
the court. Thurston was, on the 10Th
day of May, summoned before the
Grand Jury, and then submitted to it
in writing his reasons for not testify
ing, which reasons are as follows:
rrixr ftr,- tot 1af1fS
concerning the statement made by my
client to me relating to the demand
upon him by members of the Legisla-
ture for payment for their official sup
port, upon the ground that the infor
nation received by me in my capacity
as an attorney from him, in his capa-
city as client, in the course of busl-
ness between US in connection with
such relation; that such communica-
ton and information is privileged, and
have no right to divulge 1t except
upon consent of my client which Is
refused
It will be seen again that upon the
18th day of May the respondent Thurs
ton testified to these privileged com
which information he
might very properly have withheld
from the Grand Jury, and that he then
declined to do what the law requires
him to do, to wit, give the name of his |
client.
Now. while an attorney has a |
privilege, it is a privilege which |
grows out of status, and a |
status must be shown to exist. Sup |
pose an attorney at law is summoned |
before the Grand Jury and questioned |
with reference to a matter pending |
and in this case there was a matter |
pending, a matter of the gravest mo-
ment and of the utmost Importance to
society and to good government-and |
he says. II decline to testify because |
such information as I have came. from
a client" Who is the client? II de-
cline to answer" There is no way in |
the world to impeach the attorney; |
there is no way to establish the status
as existing between two parties. If he
says Richard Roe is his client. Richard |
Roe may be summoned and Richard |
Roe may deny that the attorney is his
Now, can an attorney avoid |
that liability which is imposed on wit
nesses in general by gong before a |
Grand Jury and simply stating to it |
that he represents some mysterious, |
unseen and occult client whose name |
he declines to divulge? The court is |
of the opinion that to attempt to do
such a thing is the merest pretense /
for an evasion Of the duty and liability