The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1902-12-25
THE SUMNER
CASE AGAIN
.Unprofe ssionaIism
Has Been
Charged.
HUMPHREYS WAS
TO BE ON TWO SIDES
Masoon & Peters Ask That the
Law Firm Be Stricken
From Record.

Thompson & Watson in a motion filed
yesterday by Magoon & Peters to have
their names stricken off the record as
counsel. for the Ellis children. The
attorneys for Mrs. Davis and John K.
Sumner allege that Humphreys and
Thompson were employed as attorneys
for Sumner, and also for the Ellises,
and that they acted for the latter when
their interests were hostile to Sumner
In the affidavit and motion filed by
Magoon & Peters it is alleged:
THAT they, the said F. E. Thompson,
E. M. Watson and A. S. Humphreys,
and all of them did heretofore, in an
action in the above entitled court, enti-
tied In the matter of The petition of
Maria S. Davis to be appointed the
guardian of the estate of John K. Sum
ner, an insane person, represented,
acted, and were the attorneys for the
said John X. Sumner That the said
cause was dismissed by the consent of
all parties therein and upon the dis
missal thereof, certain property, to-
wit: the Reef property, and subject to
the trusts in said trust deed fully de-
scribed in the petition herein, was sold
to the Oahu Railway and Land Com
pany for the sum of sos, 100000. That
from said sum of $105 100000 there was
paid by the said John K Sumner unto
the said Victoria Ellis Buffandeau,
William S. Ellis, John s. Ellis
and Maria S. Davis, respondents
herein, the sum of $4,000 each;
that during all of said transac-
tons the said F. E. Thompson, E. NJ
Watson and A. S. Humphreys repre-
scented, acted and were the attorneys
for the said John K. Sumner. That on
behalf of the said John K. Sumner the
said attorneys did secure from Maria
S. Davis a. release and acquittance of
all her right, title and interest in ami
to the property of the said John K.
Summer under and by virtue of the said
trust deed as aforesaid. That one of
the issues raised in the above entitled
cause, by reason of the joint and sep
arate answer of the said Victoria Ellis
Buffandeau, William S. Ellis and John
S. Ellis, and the answer of the said
John K. Sumner, is whether or not the
said sum of 100000 was paid to the
said Victoria Ellis Buffandeau, William
S. Ellis and John S. Ellis. and each of
them, in contemplation of the revoca-
ton of said trust deed by said John K
Sumner to the petitioner herein and
upon the agreement and understanding
the said Victoria Ellis Buffandeau.
William S. Ellis and John s. Ellis, and
each of them that the consideration for
the payment to them of the sum of
100000 each was the release and &C
quittance by them and each of them
Of all their right, title and interest in
and to the property of the said John
K. Sumner, under and by virtue of the
said trust deed as aforesaid"
In an affidavit by E. c. Peters it is
alleged that the failure of Humphreys
to procure discharge and release
from the Ellises, thus protecting the
| interests of Sumner, was against the
| interest of the said Sumner and in vi
olation of their professional duty to
| him, and abusing the confidence and
trust reposed in them by him" The
court is asked for an opinion as to
whether the firm should be permitted to
further appear in behalf of the Ellis
children, their interests being adverse
and hostile TO those of Sumner.
| Summers affidavit related the fact of
his return from Tahiti, and visit to
Humphreys Office with Willie Ellis.
Henry e. Highton was there. and was
paid $500 as a retainer. Humphreys
was on the bench at the time, but
agreed to act as counsel as he was to
retire in a few days, and Mr.. Sumner
says he so understood. He claims fur
| OAASi 0AA~As NC ASolu W1IH6 ElllS say
something about giving him s25 900,
and that Mr.. Humphreys replied:
We will put him un6er guardianship. "
whereat Sumner became angry and
started home. Sumner also tells about
the final settlement with the Davises
and the Ellis children, each receiving
$4,000, and says that Highton was
paid $4,000 and Humphreys, Thomp-
son & Watson received the same fee
and that he understood that the latter
firm was to act for him until the set
tlement of his troubles. In conclusion
Sumner alleges that Humphreys