The Hawaiian gazette., 1903-08-14

err the check was signed, Sumner
here is your note for $1,000, you hav,
paid me, we are quits, that Is salts
factory. As IL more were needed, al
entry dated June 26, 1903, made by
respondent by way of receipt in Sum.
ners cash book, reads, To cash pait
me this day in full (Sigd Davis) 49,.
0OO. That is not a receipt for future
services"
FEE WAS EXCESSIVE.
A summary of the past services OF
respondent is given, the court thus
| commenting:
THE pleadings, briefs and other pa
pers filed in the case make UP quite a
voluminous record, with all of which
we are quite familiar. In our opin-
ion the fee of $1,000 was excessive-it
is unnecessary to say to what extent.
And the fee demanded, s25OO, was still
more excessive. We regard this mere
ly as matter of aggravation in con-
nection with this charge, the gist of
which is the respondents method in
obtaining the fee rather than the a
mount of the fee.
Still the evidence requires the find
ing on this charge and we make it
that the respondent by means of
threats and intimidations and taking
advantage of the mental infirmities of
Sumner, caused the latter to pay him
fee substantially larger than Sum-
ner was willing to pay. An announce
ment of an intention to sue to recov-
er the fee or to garnishee the bank
or other trustee or debtor to the ex-
tent of the amount claimed, might il
it had stood alone, have been proper
and excusable but the respondent went
much further"
MACON CREDITED.
The opinion goes briefly into the
credibility of Magoon's testimony, find
ing it established from the impression
the witness created, his reluctance to
give testimony in proof of the charges
and the fact that "he was not cross
examined or his evidence contradicted
in any material respect by the re-
spondent" The conclusion of the opin-
ion is as follows, the headings as in
all foregoing instances excepted:
THAT in cases of this nature the
court should act with unusual caution
both in weighing the evidence and in
determining the penalty or order, is
fully appreciated. See In re A. S.
Humphreys and F. E. Thompson. ante
p. The law undoubtedly is that an
attorney should not be suspended or
disbarred unless the court is clearly
satisfied of his guilt Our findings in
this case are made with that rule in
mind.
ACTS INTOLERABLE.
Acts such as the respondent has
been found guilty of. on his own ad-
missions and otherwise, can not be
tolerated. They are inconsistent with
the principles of justice and honor
and fair dealing. To impede and de-
lay settlement satisfactory to
client solely for the purpose of secur-
ing an extortionate fee from some one,
to abuse the process of the courts in
order to compel a weak-minded and
easily influenced aged man who has
a dread of litigation to purchase his
peace by paying large sum of mon
ey even though it be for the benefit
of a client, and to compel such aged
man, by means of threats and intimi-
dation to pay fee substantially larg-
er than he was willing to pay, con-
stitutes misconduct so gross as to
show the attorney to be unworthy of
his office and as to merit and require
disbarment We can no longer certi-
fly to the public that the respondent
is worthy of confidence and patronage
in the line of his profession or that
he may be safely entrusted with it's
powers. If the fact be that the re-
spondent regards his conduct and
methods and purposes in connection
with the two suits as outlined by him
to be honorable and proper, then we
can only say that we cannot share in
or countenance such standards and
that we decline to be responsible in
any degree for his acts.
THE SENTENCE.
THE order of the court is that the
be and he hereby is dis
barred and that his name be stricken
from the roll of attorneys and coun-
sellers of the courts of this Territory"
Attorney General Andrews and w. S.
Fleming in support of the information.
Respondent in person.
DISSENTING OPINION.
A few extracts following will show
the tenor of the dissenting opinion by !
Justice Galbraith:
II am inclined to concur in one find
ing made by the court, namely, that !
the respondent under his own evil |
ience, is guilty of a misuse of the proc |
ess of the court in bringing the in |
junction and guardianship proceed |
ngs. Still 1t is apparent that the |
wrong done thereby is more theoreti- |
'al than real; that Sumner was an
noyed and worried by the suits is |
clear, but as result of the suits he |
made a generous allowance to his |
'ged and helpless sister. This ought
o count for something.
1T should be remembered in behalf
If the respondent that suits to put |
John X. Sumner under guardianship
nave been brought so often in the
'ourts of this country that the re-
may have honestly believed
hat it was legimate and proper to
commence the suits although they
we're not pressed to a logical conclu-
ion"
Nor does the testimony support the
hiding that the respondent was guilty
f Matchmaking the railroad company
" compelling it to pay his fee, al