Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1903-07-27
ATTORNEY MACON ANSWERS
Continued from Page ~

ducing the said J. X. Sumner to pay
respondent the said sum of $4,000 as
alleged in said Information, respond.
cnt alleges that he merely suggested
/ tf said J. X. Sumner that a proper fee
in said matter would be $4,000 at a
time when respondent had absolutely
no control over the said sum of s4S,'
OPS, or any part thereof; that said j.
X. Sumner Cheerfully aCquiesced in
the payment of said fee OF $4,000 and
az that time. and on several occasions
| since has expressed himself to re-
srondent as being wholly satisfied
with the services rendered by respond
ent in his behalf. and entirely salts.
fed with the Zee paid to respondent.
And respondent is informed and be.
| lIeyes and upon such information and
belief alleges and AYERS that said j.
n. Sumner did. prior to the filing OF
the information herein, upon being
called to the office OF said Lorrin An
drews. Attorney General, state to him
that he, said j. X. Sumner. was salts
fed with the amount OF the fee paid
t. the respondent.
That compared with some OF the
fees allowed by the courts, the fee OF
respondent for the Ropert-Sumner case
Is not only not excessive, but mod.
eIatc.
In the case Of All Loo Ngawk ct al.
VS.. A. J. Cartwright ct al, ! Haw.
4cl. contract was enforced as re.
81 ondent Is informed and believes.
and upon such information and belief
alleges and AYERS, by which, under
the sanction of the court, the attorney
Tor plaintiff in said case obtained .
fee of $1,000, where the matter in Goa.
,troversy was $1,000.
That in the first proceedings
brought by Maria S. Davis as next
friend of John X. Sumner, against NJ.
| i. Crandall, wherein an honest and
capable man had been appointed re-
Ceiver. and had charge OF the property
q. said J. X. Sumner as such receiver,
and would have preserved 1t for him
| tor the remainder of his life against
any possible impTudenCe of his own,
bad the said rcCeivcrship continued.
Messrs. Humphreys a. Gear received
o fee OF $500 and \. >. Hartweli Esq.
also received n fee Of $4,000, making
in all $1,000 to procure discharge
Of said receiver, from whence dates
oil of J. X. Summers trouble. In ad.
ditiOn to these fees, w. r. Castle Esq,
received fee of $1,000 and said A. $.
ilartwell Esq. received another and
| further fec Of 81 900, making In all
$4,000 for resisting a suit, Equity No.
95S, to set aside Il mortgage for S5J..
coo to said Y. Ahin, which the court
held to be fraudulent, involved in
which suit was the cancellation of u
deed from ]. X. Sumner to his wife
Ninito Sumner. said A. S. Hartwell ap
rearing for Ninito Sumner and W. X.
Castle for said John h. Sumner, both
al which fees were paid by said John
X. Sumner, as appears by the records
on flle in the Circuit Court Of the
First Judicial Circuit. The last men
TONED suit followed closely upon the
discharge Of the receiver as aforesaid
and in addition to the fee received by
said w. X. Castle as aforesaid, he re.
ceived the sum of 1911 for drawing
tie said mortgage. stamps and record
ing. and finally a fee OF $3.50 In all
causes.
In the suit OF II. r. Hitchcock ct al
VS.. Frank Hustace ct al. IA Haw. 232,
Tor recovery OF silr223.32. and 5000
shares of the paid'up stock Of the IA
malo Sugar Company, or $50 per share