The Hawaiian star., 1902-01-29
ALTERATION IN
THE ARTICLES
DAY IN THE KA-
MALO SUGAR COMPANY.
SUIT.
HUMPHREYS ASKED TO WITH
DRAW REMARKS.
Court Refuses and Declares That a
Palpably Fraudulent Alteration Of "A
Material Document Was Made.


Material Document Was Made
An alteration i'm the articles of in
corporation of the KamalO Sugar Com
pany, as first drawn up occupied the
attention of Judge Humphreys all
morning today. 1t was an alteration
Of vital Importance to the case, as it
showed the cate of signing of the arti-
cles to have been April 20, 1899, instead
of May 4, or later as claimed by the
plaintiffs. The acts complained of
were largely done during the interval,
and it is of great Importance whether
the corporation did them, or the de-
PENDANTS as individuals. The court re-
ferred to the alteration several times
as a palpable fraud.
When court opened, Attorney Han
key Of counsel for the defense, rose to
object to remarks made yesterday
afternoon by the judge. The fact that
the document had been altered was
discovered yesterday by the court,
after the case closed. The typewriter
copy in evidence, a certified copy,
showed that the word May" had been
written by the typewriter when the
articles were drawn up. 1t had been
erased, though traces of it remained,
and April had been written over it.
Hankey asked the privilege of a
member of the bar and an officer of
the court to call attention of some re-
marks made by the cocurt yesterday.
Il do not question the right of the
court to comment on the evidence i'm
the case" said Hankey, but when the
/ court makes remarks before the case
! is ended and before there has been Op-
pOrtunity for an explanation, which
reflect on the integrity of men of good
standing in the community, it is the
a
attention of the court to such state
ments. Yesterday afternoon, after
both sides had rested, you honor called
attention to an erasure in the articles
Of incorporation, remarking that it
was a manifest and palpable fraud.
Fraud is not presumed and crime
never. The inference to be drawn from
| the remarks, I take to be that the re-
/ spOndents in this case had changed the
date of a material instrument for the
| purpose of effecung the issues of the
case. That, under the law as I Under
stand it, is forgery. 1t is a serious
/ charge, direct OF indirect.
II ask your Honor to have read over
the remarks made at that time, and If
| as / believe, such remarks were an in
/ justice to the respondents in this case,
! that such action be taken as may be
| deemed proper i'm the premises. We
| will offer testimony on the issue in
] NOlNtus ana II IL is lnedBtI. we Will
/ ask the court to take into cOnsideTa-
| ton the infrmities of memories and
not allow words to remain of record,
! unless deserved, which could be TAX
| en- as rejecting upon the honor of men
! of well known integrity"
After Hankey had made his request.
| the court invited further remarks. Ndt
none We're offered. Miss De Cew.
! stenOgrapher, at the courts order then
| read the remarks of the judge yester-
! day afternoon. The record showed
/ that after calling attention of counsel
i to the erasure and writing of April"
! above May" the judge had said that
I it could not 80 regarded as a typo
! graphical error" and showed cOnclu-
| sivey that the date had been altered
from a day in May to April 20, for the
! purpose of affecting the suit. The no.
| tary's acknowledgment Of the sigma
lures of the defendants, was dated
May 4.
As to Hankeys remarks regarding
his reasons for making the protest,
Judge Humphreys stated that he
agreed with them. Sometimes in
oral deliverances from the bench
words are spoken which carry with
them a sting not intended" said the
judge, and it is the duty of counsel
to call the courts attention to such
cases when they occur. In oral pro-
nunCldulenlOS the court cannot BuarO
every sentence or weigh the meaning
of every word, as in the privacy of a
chamber.
while 1 understand the rule to be
that lawyers should be at all times
fearless in the interests of their clients
yet / never understood il to be the rule
to follow a client through good and
bad. 1t was the sense of this duty of
following the right that led counsel for
the respondent yesterday to disclain
all knowledge of the alteration of this
] document, when the court pointed il
] out. So pertinent was the issue and
so important the mutilatiOn of the do
cument, that each of the counsel rose
in his place and said we did not dc
it, we did not know of it,
with the deliberatiOn of the inter
vening hours they have impliedly
Withdrawn their disclaimer and seek
to put the court i'm the position OF
having spoken unfairly of the respond
ents IL must be borne in mind thai
both sides had closed, when the court
called attention to the vital alteration
in this document 1t was an alteration
which another higher court might
have deemed a turning point i'm the
case, and the duty of this court was
to call the attention of counsel to the
matter so that it might be explained
away If possible
In view Of the admitted falsity OF
entries in the cash book of the corpOr-
alton, the defendant Hustace having
testified to entries that We're made t.
make the books conform to the articles
of inCorpOratiOn,-in view of record,
acknowledged TO have been false-anC
in view Of all the circumstances, tho
court did not think 1t improper to say
that the alteration had been fraudulen
to make good the claims of the re
spondents, / think that i'm criticizinl
what appears without explanation tt
be plain and palpable fraud, IL was
right to speak IN plain, unmistakabll
terms. No difference i'm wording car
gloss over what in the absence of eX
! planatiOn, is an evident fraud In con
sideration Of all the circumstances ant
Of the contradictory vague and un