The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1902-12-19
STILL WANT
MORE MONEY
.sunnerC
Continued to
Monday.
WILLIE DAVIS
TELLS NEW STORY
Says That Ellis Heirs Made a De-
rnand for Another $1,000
and Fees.

The Sumner case was again put over
yesterday until Monday morning owing
to objections from the Ellises through
A. S. Humphreys their attorney. Ac-
cording to report there is another at
tempt to harass and hinder the old man
with the hope of extorting more of the
thousands which he has obtained from
the sale of his harbor lands to the Oahu
Railway. Wyllie Davis said yesterday
that the Ellis children, through their
attorney, had made second demand
upon John K. Sumner for an additional
s., 900 apiece on payment of which they
would agree to the withdrawal of the
$4S000 and not bother him again. This
offer, according to Davis. was finally
accepted by Sumner with the hope of
being permitted to go in peace to Ia
iilti, anu then lIe Ellis attorneys I1lduS
a further demand that they be paid
their fees in addition to the $4,000 for
each of the three grand nephews. This
second demand Disguised the old man.
and according to Davis, he put on his
hat and. left Magoon's Office. where the
interview is alleged to have taken place
d. nj, IN,
but a repetition of the chickering's of
the day previous. The motion of ]. A.
Magoon that the references to him in
the Ellis answer be stricken from the
files was first called up. Mr.. Magoon
contended that while his motion was
irregular. yet the court of its own mo-
ton could strike out any scandaious at
tack upon court official.
Magoon said that the answer of Hum
phreys was false, scandalous and
abusive, and was actuated by malice
and Spite He said that it had been
written for the sole purpose of obtain
ing newspaper notoriety and as an out
side appeal to the public.
Humphreys made no answer other
than that Magoon admitted the motion
to be Irregular, and violation of the
rules Of court. Judge De Bolt in. de-
nying the motion said that it was not
a question as to whether or not the
paragraph is scandalous, but as to
whether the rules of court had been
complied with. He acknowledged the
inherent power of the court to strike
the offensive matter from the records,
but said that such power could not be.
exercised at this time.
Judge De Bolt held that Rule had
not been complied with as to serving of
the notice of the motion and that Rule
8 had also been glaringIy disobeyed.
George Davis upon this ruling then
asked that the case be heard on merits,
I'VE waive all of our rights in this
matter said he, looking over to Ma
COON for confrma ton. mo we don't
waive any of our. rights" replied Ma
COON.
Humphreys objected TO a hearing on
the merits saying that he wanted
twenty-four hours to prepare affidavits
in support of motion for continuance.
He stated that a continuance was de-
sired because of the illness of Bishop
Gulstan, the plaintiff, and because of
the absence from the Territory of two
of the co-denfendants Che Ellis boys),
whose evidence was important
Judge De Bolt stated that he did not
intend to delay the hearing; that the
matter had been set for trial on Mon
day, and the attorneys should have
been prepared at that time for the
hearing The Bishops attorney also
objected to an immediate hearing, sid
ing in with Humphreys for that pur-
pose. Humphreys offered to go to trial
on the sole question as to whether the
trust deed should stand, but Davis OBJ
jected. He referred feelingly to the
.ex-judge's dramatic fmpersonations
which were noticeable during the pre-
liminary skirmishes." and also to the
fact that at the former trial Humphreys
was the attorney for both Ellis and
Sumner. THAT is the predicament of
the ex-judge who has been so free with
his sIurs of Matchmaking, and it ill
becomes him to becloId the issues
now
Judge De Bolt said that he did not
want the proceeding to degenerate into
a farce, and if the case was to be tried
it must be done Immediately. Hum
phreys replied that he could show am
pie ground for a continuance if given
an opportunity and asked time to file
affidavits. The court finally said Mon
day morning would be fixed peremptori-
ly for a trial upon the merits, and that