The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1903-07-30

John K. Summer would not have got
a cent
He told of Magoon's hesitation in
consenting to the sale, because he con-
sidered the O. r. & L. Co. would get
half a million dollars of value out OF
| the transaction. Mr.. Magoon he re-
garded as a man of honor who would
not knowingly do any man a wrong.
But there was the option given by
Sumner, who wanted only 100000 for
| the property and respondent per-
suaded Magoon that it was best TO set
tie the litigation.
| RUBS IN DEPUTY.
Mr.. Davis laid great emphasis on
the phrase your deputy. Mr.. Andrews"
| in saying that Emil c. Peters, while
Magoon's partner, was in each of the
more recent Summer cases and had
shared in the $4,000 paid her attorneys
by Mrs. Maria S. Davis.
Sumner was always making a deed
of his property. or will, or trust, or
something" the respondent exclaim-
ed, "and the newspapers blamed the
lawyers, but it was nobody but old
man Sumner-always doing something
for the lawyers to untangle.'
UNDER FIRE.
The cross-examination of Mr.. Davis
by the Attorney General did not pro-
duce any variation from his evidence
in chief, but rather made him en-
phasize more strongly his claimed con-
seriousness of straight business all
through. He lost no opportunity of
personal retort upon his interrogation,
once haunting him with being ratified
and forgetting his own questions.
With regard to the power of attor-
ney and the promissory note given him
BIZ Summer, he argued to the Court
that it was all open, aboveboard and
in accordance with universal practice.
DENOUNCES NAMESAKE.
Respondent said he told Wyllie Da-
Wis that the lack of Magoon's o. K.
would be a good defense to a suit "a
gainst the bank. WylIie Davis told
an absolute lie when he said he first
proposed a settlement and respondent
refused assent. The term lie he after
ward substituted with statement
that Davis was mistaken, "as being
more gentlemanly." Davis told him
his uncle was willing to receive $780,
900 for the property.
BY THE COURT.
To Chief Justice Frear-I had suit
drawn up to garnishee the First Ma
tional Bank upon the promissory note
for $4,000. The papers l hold in my
hand were the suit but We're not sign |
ed, simply drafted. The money was
not then deposited. L did not know |
but Sumner might get away to Tahiti |
and 1 should never obtain my fee. |
(Emphatically) 1 have never received |
my fee in the Nobrega case, through |
this man Andrews. / was going to |
use my lien before Judge De Bolt and |
if L failed there 1 would proceed on |
the garnishee process.
To Justice Perry-I surrendered the |
note with $1,000 remitted-that was |
equal to receipt; the check with my |
was the best kind of re-
ceipt in law. If he asked for a receipt |
1 gave him one. Cooking at Mr..
Magoon says 1 gave him a
receipt. Magoon understood what it
was for 1 don't know what the old |
man thinks of it. He swore on the
stand that he never employed me at
all. Do you believe that? You cannot
believe that.
At the conclusion of Mr.. Davis's
cross-examination the Court adjourn
ed until 10 o'clock this morning.
TO PROVE WORK.
Mr.. Davis will call Judge De Bolt to-
lay to prove something of the amount
Of work he, the respondent, did in the
Sumner litigation. He displayed the
records unanimously in this regard
while on the stand himself, claiming
that he controlled and directed every
thing on Mr.. Summers behalf. In an
swer to the Court, he further declared
he 5000 fee covered the pursuit of Sum-
ner's interests to the end of all pend
ing matters.