The Hawaiian gazette., 1903-07-28
TRIAL OF MACON
UPON THE CHARGES

UPUN IHt ChARGES
The Supreme Court resumed its sit
ting promptly at 1870, 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. j. Lightfoot APP
peared to assist the respondent, ]. A.
Magoon.
Attorney General Andrews read the
information against the respondent, of
which the substance has already ap-
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
with that of Mr.. Magoon. The evil
dence would to a large extent be the
same in both cases.
What does the Attorney
say?" Justice Perry asked
Mr.. Andrews stated that the charges
We're entirely distinct Mr.. Magoon was
not charged with the same things as
Mr.. Davis, nor Mr.. Davis with those
against Mr.. Magoon.
the Court regarded the matters as dis
tinct.
EVIDENCE BEGINS.
The Attorney General then proceeded
to put in evidence, beginning with the
records in various Sumner cases.
P. H. Burnette was the first wit
part of October, 1902. Had his notarial
record with him. 1t contained under
Oct. 90 a power of attorney from John
X. Sumner to ]. Alfred Magoon; under
date Oct. 81 a trust deed from John X.
Sumner to r. w. Davis; it conveyed
all Summers property in this Terri
tory, including s4S,O25 in bank: pre-
sumed it was drawn by Magoon or
came from his office; Sumner and Davis
came in with it, thought Magoon was
with them. On Nov. there was an ad-
dition to the same trust deed from
Sumner to Davis. Jan. &c, 1908, there
was a cancellation by Davis to Sumner
of trust deed dated October 81, 1902
No REORGANIZATION.
A RELUCTANT WITNESS.
T. McCants Stewart said he was an
attorney at-law and knew ]. A. Ma
COON. Witness was attorney for Bish-
OPP Gulstan F. Ropert in suit to have a
new trustee for John X. Sumner I'M
der trust deed of 1898. Omitted the
defendants. Witness related his con-
versation with the Acknowledgement
over the telephone about why he omit
ted the name of Wyllie Davis, in which
he had said he thought Mr.. Peters.
partner of Magoon, came to ask him to
leave out the name of Davis. Witness
spoke alphabetically Of appearing
where the professional life of a brother
attorney was concerned. His recollec-
tion was that Magoon as well as Peters
spoke to him about leaving out Davis
as a party defendant. No mention was
made to me by Magoon Of a trust ded
by Sumner to r. w. Davis. Think 1t
was first brought out by Mr.. Hum
phreys in the Circuit Court; might have
been brought out first in the Supreme
Court At the time was Indifferent as
to the controversy between Sumner and
his relatives, as l represented only the
Bishop.
Cross-examined, witness made a
voluntary statement that he had a
recollection OF visiting the Bishop, of
being told by him that he had surren-
dered the s4s,O25 to Summer and of adj
vising the Bishop that 1t was doubtful
IL he could get rid of the trust in that
way. My endeavor was to get the
Bishop rid of that trust. TO Magoon).
You stated TO me that you positively
could break down the petition by cross
examination of the Bishop.
TOO MUCH VOLUNTEERED.
The Attorney General objected to evil
dence on REORGANIZATION volunteered
by witness in support of statements in
answer.
Witness was allowed to say that he
received fee OF $500 for representing
the Bishop, which Sumner admitted
was reasonable and which was settled
in Magoons office.
Continued on page 50