The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1903-07-28
TRIAL OF MACON
UPON THE CHARGES

The Supreme Court resumed its sit
ting promptly at 1:3O, Chief Justice w.
F. Frear and Associate Justices c. A.
Galbraith and Antonio Perry on the
bench.
Lorrin Andrews, Acknowledgement,
appeared for the Territory with the CO.
operation of w. S. Fleming, Assistant
Attorney-General. ]. Lightfoot APP
peared to assist the respondent, J. A.
Magoon.
Attorney General Andrews read the
information against the respondent, of
which the substance has already APP
peared in the Advertiser.
Mr.. Lightfoot read the answer of re-
spondent. Reading throughout with
considerable deliberation of accent, he
did not finish until five minutes of three
o'clock.
DAVIS RULED OUT.
Geo. A. Davis here appeared and ask
ed if his case could not be tried along
with that of Mr.. Magoon. The evil
dence would to a large extent be the
same in both cases.
What does the Attorney-General
say?" Justice Perry asked
Mr.. Andrews stated that the charges
were entirely distinct. Mr.. Magoon was
not charged with the same things as
Mr. Davis, nor Mr.. Davis with those
against Mr.. Magoon.
Chief Justice Frear announced that
the Court regarded the matters as dis
tinct.
EVIDENCE BEGINS.
The Attorney-Generalt then proceeded
to put in evidence, beginning with the
records in various Sumner cases.
p H. Brunette was the first wit
ness. Was a notary public the latter
part of October, 1902. Had his notarial
record with him. 1t contained under
Oct. % a power of attorney from John
K. Sumner to J. Alfred Magoon; under
Sumner to R. w. Davis; it conveyed
all Summers property in this Terri
tory, including $4S,025 in bank: pre-
sumed it was drawn by Magoon or
came in with it, thought Magoon was
with them. On Nov. there was an adj
dition to the same trust deed from
Sumner to Davis. Jan. 20, 1903, there
was cancellation by Davis to Sumner
Of trust deed dated October 81, 1902.
No cross-examination.
A RELUCTANT WITNESS.
T. McCants Stewart said he was an |
attorney-at-Iaw and knew j. A Ma
COON. Witness was attorney for Bish- |
'p Gulstan F. Ropert in suit to have a |
new trustee for John K. Summer un-
Ter trust deed of 1885, Omitted the
lame of Wyllie Davis from the list of
Witness related his con-
with the Attorney General
Fver the telephone about why he omit
ed the name of Wyllie Davis, in which
lie had said he thought Mr.. Peters,
'artner of Magoon, came to ask him to
cave out the name of Davis. Witness
poke alphabetically of appearing
rhere the professional life of brother
ttorney was concerned. His recollec-
ion was that Magoon as we'll as Peters
poke to him about leaving out Davis
S a party defendant. No mention was ]
lade to me by Magoon of a trust ded
y Sumner to r. w. Davis. Think it
as first brought out by Mr.. Hum
hreys in the Circuit Court; might have :
cen brought out first in the Supreme
curt. At the time I was Indifferent as I
Is relatives. as 1 represented only the
ishop.
Cross-examined. witness made a 1
statement that he had
collection OF visiting the Bishop. of
ing told by him that he had surren-
red the s4S, OPS to Sumner and of adj
sing the Bishop that it was doubtful
he could get rid of the trust in that
ay. My endeavor was to get the s.
shop rid of that trust. (To Magoon). +
1u stated to me that you positively n
uld break down the petition by cross II
animation of the Bishop.
TOO MUCH VOLUNTEERED. "
rhe Acknowledgement objected to evil
nee on cross-eXamination volunteered -
witness in support of statements in
spondent's answer. -
Witness was allowed to say that he
2eived a fee Of $500 for representing
2 Bishop, which Sumner admitted AZ
Is reasonable and which was settled I
MagOon'S office. G
I was admitted by Mr.. MagoOn that
dye De Bolt if called would testify m
1t the existence of the trust deed to s