The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1902-12-27

latter had sought to do, but had simply
presented the motion for the purpose of
finding whether or not the opposing
counsel should be permitted to act as
attorneys of record.
In other words" said the court,
counsel went out of the record to
light their own battles
Mr.. Watson replied saying he had no
dirty linen to wash in court, but the
motion of Magoon and Peters had been
an attack upon the reputation of the
law firm Of which he was member,
and which If true was sufficient ground
for disbarment. He asked the court for
an investigation of the facts and said
that this should be done before there
was any further proceeding in the cases.
Mr.. Magoon said he was willing to let
the matter rest until after the trial of
the case, and then renew the motion to
strike the names of the attorneys from
the record.
Mr.. Thompson replied to this state
| ment. saying that they were entitled
to an investigation as matter of
privilege and that it would be absurd
/, to wait until after the trial, to find out
whether the firm Of Humphreys,
Thompson & Watson was entitled to
represent Mrs. Buffandeau. He charac-
tterized Magoon's argument as sense
less, absurd and idiotic.''
Here Judge De Bolt interrupted to
gret exceedingly this unseemly squab-
BILE among the attorneys said the
court. THAT alone is unprofessional it
seems to me. 1t appears that we have
lost sight of the interests of the parties
at issue, and the court is strongly of
the opinion that the case should come
to a hearing on its merits. It seems as
if the attorneys are always trying to
put something in the way of this and
we cannot proceed now until the motion
to strike from the record the name of
Humphreys, Thompson & Watson is
disposed of. If the facts as set forth
in the motion are true there is unques-
tionably the implication that they are
unfit to act as counsel. 1t is very
illogical AID nonsensical view to take,
that the matter could be presented
after the trial. The only way I can see
lis to withdraw the motion and affidavits
from the files. This done will rule on
the motion to strike out the Ellis an
swer.''
At this point Davis asked that his
name be stricken from the motion, say
ing that he had simply filed it formally
as one of the attorneys.
Mr.. Humphreys said he objected to
the striking out of the motion without
an investigation, which he was entitled
to. Mr.. Magoon said he would with
draw the motion without prejudice to
renew it at later date.
Humphreys made formal objection
saying he was entitled to have either
an acquittal or conviction of the
charges made against him.
| Peters interrupted to say that the
professional honor of the attorneys had
been touched in a soft place, and that
he objected to being referred to as that
Mr.. Peters" He withdrew the motion
with the courts consent, and with the
remark that it would be renewed at
some future day.
| Judge Humphreys then stated that he
would withdraw the personal remarks
he had made concerning opposing coun-
sci. To this Mr.. Peters objected saying
he wished to have them on the record.
Judge De Bolt then ordered the with
drawal of the motion and affidavits. 81
wish to state he said, that consider
the personal remarks of counsel undig-
nified. They do not assist your case in
any way, and are very undignified and
! improper, a practice which should be
discouraged in every way"
You do not include me in your re-
marks, do your" asked Davis.
"Mr. Davis, you behaved remarkably
well today, though I don't know how
they will affect you later
Judge De Bolt then denied the motion
of Magoon & Peters to have the an
swer of the Ellises stricken from the
files.
! Both motions having been disposed of
Mr.. Davis renewed his motion for an
! immediate trial, when the motion for
a continuance was presented by Mr..
Thompson on behalf of the Ellises.
Davis contended that there was not
sufficient ground shown in the affidavits
of Mrs. Buffandeau for delay in the
case. He said that both W. S. Ellis and
John Ellis had been served with sub
poenaes before their departure and had
refused to obey them. This being the
case they were not now entitled to de-
lay because of their absence. The ar
gument on the motion for continuance
had not been finished when court ad-
journed for the afternoon.
] AFTERNOON SESSION.