The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1902-12-06
DAVIS AND
HIS ETHICS
Severe Criticism
BY Supreme
Court.
RULING GIVEN IN
NOBREGGA CASE
Court Finds Much in Gears Con.
duct Which Seems to be
Questionable"


icism at the hands of the Suprem
Court in a decision in the Nobregg
divorce case. The appeal from Judg
Gears order allowing his forme
partner fee of $1,000, after makini
him one present in the same case o
$500, was dismissed by the court, be
ing improperly brought, but Davis il
! given a lesson on professional eth
les" which he will probably not sooI
forget. The court regrets" the i'm
proper appeal, because there is so muci
which seems questionable" in the case
Davis, by the decision, still hangs OF
to the $4,000 alimony fixed by the
| Supreme Court in former decision
and it is probable that action in re-
plevin will be brought to secure pos.
session of it. The money is tied VI
now because the legal questions remain
unsettled, though Davis holds both the
note and mortgage from Nobregga, re-
fusing to give them to his client.
The unanimous opinion of the SUI
preme Court is written by Chief JUS
tice Frear. and he says:
Upon granting a divorce in this case
the Circuit Court awarded as alimony
in gross to the wife substantially one
half of the husbands real property.
This court set aside that judgment on
the ground that the court could not
thus award or divide and divest the
title of real property. 10 Haw. 1854 An
award of temporary alimony was also
held erroneous under the circumstances
of the case The court then awarded
$4,000 as alimony in gross. This court
set aside that judgment also on the
grounds that the amount was excessive
and that the time within which it
should be paid was too short, and held
that the amount should not exceed $4,000
and that the most of it should not be
required to be paid in less than six
months. Ante, 152 The Circuit Court
then awarded $1,000 as alimony in gross
and in the same judgment further or
dered, adjudged and decreed that out
of the said sum of $4,000 so adjudged
and decreed to be paid to the said Lii
bana de Nobrega, the sum of one thou
sand dollars ($1,O00) be paid to her at
torney of record, George A. Davis, IN
accordance with an agreement in writ
ing made between the said libellant
and her said counsel on the 18th day of
July, A. D. 1901. The court further or
dered that certain real estate of the
libellee stand charged with the said
sum of five thousand dollars $4,000
hereby before ordered, adjudged and
decreed to be paid to Libana de Nobre-
ga, the said libellant and George A.
Davis, her counsel, that is to say, to
pay the said libellant the sum of $4,000
on or before the 30th day of April. A. D.
1908, and the said George A. Davis the
sum of one thousand dollars ($1000) on
or before April Goth, 1903" The libellant
appeals from this allowance of 81, 900 as
counsel fee.
Her counsel on this appeal who were
not of counsel in the divorce suit con-
tend that the Circuit Court went be-
yond the Instructions of this court; that
way a fee to an attorney from his own
client; and that the allowance was out
rageous III it's amount.
IlGI COOHSSl III the ulfOTCe suit lIlONCu
to dismiss the appeal on the ground
that it was taken through other coun-
sci without a change of counsel of rec
ord Though we may remark in pass
ing, the appeal was signed by her in
person., and he contends that the case
is still in his hands and that profess
sional ethics require that no change of
counsel should be permitted until his
fees are paid. He contends also that
the fee allowed is not excessive.
The argument of professional ethics"
is certainly a strange one to come from
that side. 1t would more properly come
from the other side The interest of
counsel in this matter of his fee is adj
verse to that of his client and yet he
contends that he should be permitted
to represent both himself and her, that
is, both sides. and that she should be
denied all opportunity to assert her
rights until she has yielded them all
to her adversary and deprived herself
of the possibility of receiving any bene-
1T that she might otherwise obtain by
pursuing her remedy. Further COM
ment on this branch of the case is I'M
necessary.
We are obliged. however, to dismiss
the appeal on another ground, suggest
&c by question from the court at the
hearing, and now relied on by coun-
sci. The case was brought here on ap-
peal But it is clear under the statutes
and former decisions that appeals do
not lie in divorce cases. The appropri-
ate method for bringing such cases to
this court is by exception or writ of
error.
It is to be regretted that the case is
not properly before us, as there is SO
much that would seem at first glance
to be questionable IN the matter Elk
ceptions cannot now be taken and ii is
too late to sue out writ of error.
Whether the matter can be brought UP
by any other method we need not now
undertake to say.
The appeal is dismissed.
Andrew. & Andrads for appellant.
Geo. A. Davis, counsel, in person.