The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-10-05

evidence on a alot!1n Or allowance of
attorneys fees to the firm of Gear &
humphreys in the case of Kalua KaDi-
KIM, spendthrift- This is the case
wherein j. A. Magoon S guardian. and
Ia which a former unsuccessful attenpt
was made by the attorneys named to re-
move him The case at that time was
heard by Judge Perry. ~ho refused 20
grant the application, ana i was carricl
70 the Supreme Court, with the result
that the lower court was affirmed Judges
Gear and Humphreys were attorneys for
the spendthrift IN the former proceeding.
and through Attorney George Davis,
made application yesterday for an attor-
ney's fee of $500 for their work In the
former case.
Judge Gear was put on the stand In
support Of the motion, and testified that
1000 a month was not too much for at
torneys TO earn in Honolulu Magoon re-
sisted the attempt TO secure such a fee,
and asked If he was not entitled to the
same amount for defending the trust
from what he believed was prejudicial TO
his wards interest. namely, the effort
to GUST him from the guardianship. In
the argument which followed Mr.. Ma
COON naively stated that he defended the
case the motion to GUST him) with as
much skill and effort as if he was TO get
a large fee.
The examination of Judge Gear let
some interesting light upon the question
of attorneys fees in this city.
Did you consider that you had a good
caseT', asked Mr.. Davis of Judge Gear
Il thought the case was invincible; l
don't see yet how Judge Perry could
have refused to terminate the spendthrift
trust"
Then you thought you were going to
be successful"
II had no reason TO believe otherwise
1 thought we had the case won said
the witness
You carried it to the Supreme Court?"
Yes, 1t was taken TO the Supreme
Court and affirmed. though how 1 can't
understand"
How long were you working on the
case?"
THE trial occupied over week, and
the case was afterward argued to the
Supreme Court. couldn't see how she
could be a spendthrift. MT. Magoon was
her guardian when she was a minor, and
then when she married he was appoint
ed her guardian as a spendthrift. She
didn't have any property at that time, as
! far as l could learn
Did this woman ever pay you any
thing as retaining fee?'
! No; on the contrary. We supported her
| for a year and a half"
! What do you think is a reasonable re-
enumeration for your services?''
! We were to get $3.50 from the estate in
! case we We're successful, but ! think
about $500 would be a reasonable fee"
| Mr. Magoon then cross-examined the
! witness on this point.
Was this agreement made only in case
! you won the suit?" he asked Judge Gear.
! NO, there was no stipulation of that
kind. l knew the agreement was no
good in case we did not win, as she had
no property of her own. We advanced
her $3.50, bought her a pony and saddle
and other things.
You received payment for that, did
you not?'
4 think So.
You think $500 reasonable attorneys
fee. them"
Il think it is about right"
DO you think the attorney for the
guardian should have the same fee; he
did the same work, and went through
the same trial as you did,.
Yes, he worked as hard as We did in
defending 1 never thought that the law
allowed the guardian a fee. 1 did not
believe there was any defense, and don't
think you should have defended her"
But the defendant won. did he not?'
Yes"
Upon what do you base your claim for
$500?"
I'VE were in court for two weeks Il
an attorney couldn't make 81, 900 month
while actually engaged in court, how
would he make living outside? You
must take into consideration the time
spent IN education and the days he is not
in court"
Then you think $500 is a reasonable
fee for the service you performed?"
Il do It is not a bit too large. think
the fee should be in proportion to thu
amount of the estate
What was the value of the estate?'
interposed the court.
About ZIG. Co., continued Judge Gear
, The attorneys in Fair will case received
half million dollars l remember on
case at Santa Cruz where the attorney
were in court for a week. and receives
100000 for their services. Then again, 4
this court, in an estate of half million
dollars, an attorney applied for fifty
dollar fee for probating the will. Fly
thousand was q good deal nearer tn
amount he should have received
Following Judge Gear, j. 7. De Boil
was called and testified that he did nc
think $500 was an unreasonable amour
II for the labor performed in this case.
The matter was then argued to tn
court, and taken uIlueI tNF iStAAiSit
Il COURT NOTES
% The case of zee Tai Co. VS., Wong II
has been dismissed, the appeal havin
a been withdrawn.
If An additional report has been Med
d the matter of the estate of James K. ~
If aulo, late of Kau, Hawaii. The admin
e istrator has received the sum of $S,sS5 an
j. expended $3,935.SO leaving a balance o'
.e him of eighty cents.
r In the case of the Harrison Mill co. V
lie WaiaIua Hotel Co, in account, defendal
II has filed general denial, stating th'
E. it owes nothing to the plaintiff, al
D. never was so indebted.
The masters report in the guardlansh
Ia of Ethel P. IN. Gay was confirmed al
TX the guardian, w. o. Smith, ordered ol
I'd charged
in In the case of Julia Kaleinani ct al.
c. Iai Young, defendant filed an ans"
at stating that he no longer has an int
Of est in the property nor claims any al
V. asks that the case be dismissed
n