The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1903-07-10
SPEECHES IN
THE D|SBARMtN[ CASE
Attorney General Andrews Unsparinsly Ana.
lyzes the Conduct Of Humphreys and
Thompson-..Address Of Humphreys Inter-
rupted by Illness.

(From Thursdays Daily)
Closing arguments in the disbarment
case occupied most of the day before
the Supreme Court yesterday There
was an interruption of argument i'm
mediately after the noon recess, to al
low Mr.. Humphreys to Introduce sur
rebuttal evidence. The Attorney-Gen-
eral then had to put on rebuttal of the
surrebuttal Much Of the new evidence
offered by both sides was disallowed by
the court. Afterward the Attorney
General concluded the argument for
the prosecution, excepting what may be
necessary in reply to that for the de-
Tense. and A. S. Humphreys got well
under way with his closing address, he
having changed his mind about waiv-
ing argument in his own behalf.
INTERLUDE OF TESTIMONY.
w. l.. Stanley and another attorney
were called by Humphreys. Mr.. Stan
ley testified that in the railway suit
while Sumner was absent in Tahiti,
Holmes & Stanley were attorneys for
Bishop Ropert, and Mr.. Highton asked
to be entered with them; that they ac-
cepted his representations as those of
a reputable attorney, but We're told by
the Bishop later that Highton was not
employed by him. While an objection
of the Attorney was in dispute.
a remark by Justice Perry caused
Humphreys to withdraw the question.
Justice Galbraith, however, thought the
evidence material as being to con-
tradict 1.-THE star witness" for the pros
ecution.
HUMPHREYS SCURRILOUS.
Chief Justice Frear could not see the
of the evidence and Hum
phreys undertook to show it to him,
winding up with the recapitulation
I'm short, that we want to show that
Highton is an unmitigated liar"
The second witness told how he had
been called against his will, owing to
having answered question asked him
by Judge Stanley that forenoon. His
evidence was all about a conversation
in Holmes & Stanley's office, in which
Mr.. Highton expressed the opinion that
the railways purchase option in the
Sumner Island lease was not worth
because there was no consid-
grafton. Sumner was absent from the
at the time.
HIGHToN CALLED.
Mr.. Highton was called and explained
now he came to have his name entered
Is an attorney of record for the Bishop.
sumner was absent and he regarded
Sumner as a necessary party with his
rustee and he desired to represent
sumner without entering his direct APP
,earance pending his return.
Amidst a wrangle arising from
objections, Mr.. Highton
exclaimed:
II am here as witness and I shall
ddress the court If choose"
ASKS PROTECTION.
Later, when Chief Justice Frear had
'iven the ruling that question was
lot material, Mr. Highton asked pro-
ection of the court from continuous
insults by the respondents, as prac-
itioner in the courts for forty-four
ears. Then, in evidence he was per-
nitted to give, he told of Humphreys
aving stated to him on one occasion
hat witness had earned his (Hum-
hreys's) fee in the case as well as his
wn.
The Acknowledgement then resumed
10 dduiesS NHtIe Ht Htu oTohtl OIL
efore recess.
THE LAW PRESENTED
Philip l.. Weaver, Assistant Attor-
on the opening of court in
he morning made the closing argu-
nent for the prosecution from the legal
lew point He began by representing
old man Sumner and the pot of gold
s having occupied the center OF the
tage all the time in the long-drawn-
ut drama of the Sumner case. They
ad come to the act in which the re-
assume new role. They
epresented the pot OF gold and not the
elatives. Mr., Weaver produced a num-
er OF authorities to fasten upon Hum
hreys and Thompson the liability for
ny prejudicial action or inaction af-
Getting Sumner, either during or after
he fact of themselves or their firm
aving been his attorneys OF record.
me case showed where an attorney
vas punished for appearing against a
ormer client in a different State from
hat in which he had represented him