The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1902-09-23
GEO. DAVIS
RUNS AMUCK
Highton Trims the
Attorney Down
Again.
SUMNER CASE HAS
BEEN SUBMITTED
Freak Lawyer Makes Another At
tack Upon the Advertiser But
is Finally Quoted.

The Sumner case was argued and
submitted to Judge Robinson yesterday
| upon motion to dismiss the suit.
Judge Highton appeared for Sumner
| and George Davis represented Maria
Davis who brought the suit as next
friend" incidentally Judge Gears
midnight order issuing an Injunction
against the contamination of the Oahu
Railway & Land Co. option came in for
vigorous scoring, while Davis made one
of his usual attacks upon the Adver-
tiser. at the same time strenuously de-
| Tending his own character. In fact so
persistent was he in the defense of him.
self and the exploitation of his own
many virtues that Judge Robinson
| finally mildly suggested that his char
acter was not in question in the pro-
ceeding at bar. Judge Highton also
put in few remarks which. complete
ly cowed the excitable attorney, and
at the close of the hearing Davis was
sitting quietly in his chair as meek as
any ordinary attorney
AT the opening of court yesterday
Davis filed a counter affidavit setting
out that Sumner had once been under
guardianship, and was relieved of that
only through an agreement that he
should name Bishop Gulstan as trustee,
the decree of Judge Perry being there
upon reversed by the Supreme Court
Mr.. Highton asked that the suit be
dismissed upon two grounds, setting out
the reasons in the motion, which has
already been published.
He argued that Judge Gears action
was ex parte. that Sumner had not been
given chance to be heard, and Maria
S. Davis was named as next friend"
without authority or knowledge on his
part. Judge Gear was acting on the
supposition that something had to be i
done Immediately. when in fact such
was not the case. During the course
of the argument the midnight order
of Judge Gear was referred to as filed |
in the night filed in the darkness,
and it was urged that Sumner had
a right to be heard before such an order !
could be issued. Mr.. Highton further
contended that upon the record Sumner !
is sane and entitled to all his rights, !
that affidavits to that effect are un-
contradicted and he is entitled to be I
of the interference of Maria S. I
Davis in attempting to prevent the con-
of the Oahu Railway sale.
Davis in reply said he cared nothing
for affidavits, that it was a matter of
record that Sumner had been insane,
and would still be under guardianship
had not Maria S. Davis consented TO his
release upon the agreement that Bishop
Ropert should control his property. He
said he was willing to prove this, but
that now the defendant, who previously |
was so anxious for trial, is not ready. |
He had, he said, summoned witnesses
for Tuesday to prove his case, and read
the names, including Judge Perry, ,
Judge Gear and Judge Humphreys with
thirteen others. He said further that
he felt justified in remaining up until
the small hours of the morning in pro- ,
curing the injunction and that it was
perfectly proper
Here Davis started in on an attack
upon the Advertiser, exhibiting to the
Court an article headed Has a Mind
of His own" and referring to the aff1-
davits and motion filed in the Sumner
case This he said was an attempt on
the part of someone to influence the
Court. AT this Mr.. Highton jumped
up and objected to the statement, and
Davis replied that he had no right to
interrupt him. To this HightOn re-
spnnded, You have a right to sit still
when [ interfere. l object to argument
from newspapers; the attorney has no
right to take up our time with that, and
l would like to have it excluded
Davis continued however, stating
that the article was in the nature of
a comment upon pending case, and
was properly contempt of court. He
did not think it would influence the
Court, to which Judge Robinson replied
that he had read the article.
1T is unfair and improper" said
Davis. mo paper would do that To-
iay it lauds to the skies and tomorrow /
it condemns you. l don't intend to call
YOUR attention to newspaper articles
again, but L simply wanted to show
that this was an attempt to show
Your remarks are an imputation
that counsel has something to do with
the publication interrupted the Court.
The headline was unfair; if this had
CONTINUED on page 12D
-oR~ Il