The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1902-11-22
ASKS DAVIS.
To Die Up
Gears EiberaIity
Rebukcd in
Court.
NOBREGGA CASE IN
SUPREME COURT
Davis Has Possession OF Woman's
Alimony and Refuses TO
Give II Up.


other peoples money was again the
subject of severe, arraignment in the
Supreme Court yesterday. Sylvano De
Nobregga had appealed from an order
made by the second judge giving to
George Davis the sum of $1,000 as attor-
.ney's fee in her divorce suit against her
husband, he having already been
awarded $500.
The circumstances of the case, from
the statements made in the argument
before the Supreme Court yesterday
morning, were to say the least peculiar.
Mrs. Nobregga sued her husband for di-
vorce, charging adultery, her husband
admitting that he had deserted her for
a younger and better-looking woman
Judge Gear gave her the decree, allow
ing George Davis fee of $500 which
the husband was compelled to pay.
Davis, it appeared, also had an agree
ment with the woman, by which he
should receive one-fifth of the alimony
very accommodatingly gave lump
sum to Mrs. Nobregga, one-half of the
husbands property, or $4,000 in cash.
From this allowance Nobregga ap-
pealed and the Supreme Court held the
amount of alimony to be excessive.
Then the second judge fixed the alirnony
at $4,000 and again the husband ap-
pealed. This time the Supreme Court
took the matter entirely out of the
hands of Judge Gear and itself fixed
the amount which should be paid to
the wife as $4,000 and also gave the de-
PENDANT in the case sufficient time to
realize upon his real estate in order to
comply.
. Judge Gear thereupon obeyed the or
der of the Supreme Court allowing ALI
mony in the sum of $4,000, but added an
additional provision that this amount
should be subject to a counsel fee in
the sum of $1,000 to be paid to George
A. Davis in pursuance of a written
agreement with Mrs. Nobregga. The
case came up before the Supreme Court
yesterday morning on an appeal by An
woman, from the order of Judge, Gear
allowing Davis counsel fee of $1,000,
it being set out that he had already
been paid.
Davis didn't like a little bit, the ap-
peal of Mrs. Nobregga from the al
lowance of his fat fee and the move to
dismiss the appeal. Il am attorney of
record for Mrs. Nobregga in this case"
said Davis, land 1 would like to know
What the firm of Andrews & Andrade
has got to do with my business. This
is my case, and 1 won 1t in the lower
court, and in this court on appeal and
there is nothing to show that there has
been any change in the attorneys Of
record. This appeal is not properly be-
fore this court. I am still this woman's
right to appear in her behalf 1 have
got the mortgage and the note for my
fee in my office, and 1 intend to hold
on to il until the fee is paid. 1 have a
contract in writing with Mrs. Nobregga
ard L can't be deprived of it by the
courts, or even by an act of the legis
lature."
This is an appeal from the decree
g IL
lin which the court has gone further
than the Supreme Court ordered, and
has required this woman to pay one
fifth of her alimony to an attorney
and it is from this order the appeal is
taken. The case has been in this court
twice on appeal, and the second time
the Supreme Court set out the specific
order for the payment of $4,000 alimony.
In addition to this the circuit judge or
dered that out of said sum of $4,000 the
said sum of $1,000 be paid to George
A. Davis as counsel fees This order
violates the whole principle of the Su-
preme Court ruling, by giving one-fifth
of the total alimony to her attorney. 1t
is quite natural that Mr. Davis the
attorney of record doesn't want to ap-
peal and he has refused naturally to
allow substitution of attorneys
I appear for Mrs. Nobregga,' replied
Davis angrily, land what right have
Andrade & Andrews to come in here
and take my case from me, before exc
cution of the decree. If 1 did anything
wrong in getting a $1,000 fee it doesn't
all go to me anyway for 1 intend to pay
Mrs Neumann one-half. If Andrews
conducted his business IS I do he would
not be in here with this appeal
who appears for you, Mr. Davis?"
asked Justice Perry after several at
tempts to interrupt the noisy lawyer.
Il do. No one appears for me, l am
not n party to this case at all. l sub
nit my position and have nothing more
to say. 1 have the note and mortgage
and intend to hold onto hem
L.. ...lal.. : Lirc =,