The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1903-06-30
DISBARMENT
CASE TRIAL
.agoon Is Cross
Examined by
Defense.
He Makes Admissions
Upon Compromise
Matters.
Divuiges the Existence of Trust
Deed Of All Summers Prop
erty to WalIy Davis.

! When the Supreme Court opened yes
terday morning to try the charges
against Messrs. Humphreys and
Thompson, the answer of Frank
Thompson was filed. 1t was in terms
| almost identical with that of A. S.
Humphreys, denying specifically the
various char es of misconduct.
John K. Sumner and nearly all the
parties to the various cases bearing
his name, upon which this matter re-
wolves, were IN court.
Attorney General Andrews, who was
accompanied by Assistant Attorney
General Weaver, asked for continu-
ance until the afternoon, as the an
swer of Mr.. Humphreys had only been
filed Saturday afternoon and that of
Mr.. Thompson that morning. He
wished time to compare their state
ments with the alleged facts in the
information, for # what the respond
ents answered was true he might with
draw the information. The coutinu-
ance was granted.
In the afternoon the pleadings were
read and the Attorney General then
began putting on his case against the
two attorneys.
Attorney ]. A Magoon was placed
on the stand as the first witness. Xxx
amined by Andrews, some of the cnier
points of his evidence were as follows:
Asked Humphreys while the latter
was first Circuit Judge to take Sum-
ner's case after retiring; told him 1
didn't see anything wrong in his taxi
ing the case after retiring from the
bench; after Humphreys came off the
bench he told witness he had been call
ed into the case.
Next connection witness had with
Sumner was when Geo. A. Davis asked !
him to assist him before Judge De Bolt; !
he telephoned to Humphreys that he !
didn't know any reason why he (wit-
ness) should not be called into the case;
next morning found on looking at the !
records it was the suit of Mrs. Davis /
to put Sumner under guardianship for
insanity; case was transferred from
took a leading part; Thomp-
son took a very active part against |
Geo. Davis and myself; took it all the
way through that Thompson was rep
Sumner.
Mr.. Thompson objected to the ques-
ton as to who represented the Ellises in
that suit, as the records were the best
evidence, and it was not pressed.
Witness described the interview about
a compromise in his Kaalawai house
with Humphreys, testifying the latter
said:
What do you care for Sumner? Let
him go. They will spend the money
anyway"
Finally Humphreys said:
IF this settlement is made I can get
$4,000 out of it for the Ellises and you
can get $4,000 out of Sumner
Witness still declined to entertain
the proposal and then Humphreys said:
''Well, you think the matter over"
Humphreys asked him if he had seen
the trust deed and when he answered
he had not Humphreys promised to
furnished him a copy of it; he said he
would bring a suit on behalf of the FL
Uses, unless the matter were compro-
missed, to get the money from Bishops !
bank, and will say" witness quot
ed Humphreys, chat Sumner will new
er get dollar Of it." Humphreys said /
he would take it to the Supreme Court |
here and find way of taking it to the
Federal Supreme Court, and keep it !
in litigation as long as Sumner lived.
He told witness he must not say any
thing about the fees-''we must keen ,
that to ourselves" Humphreys con-
Guided
Again Humphreys said to witness,
when the latter went to see him about
stopping the litigation:
IF you have come for a settlement
want you to understand that want
$4,000 or nothing; I would not take
Szs'ss9s Witness replied if that was
the way he looked at it, there was no
use Of witness wasting any more of
his time.
1 absolutely deny" witness said,
that ever made any offer of any kind