Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1903-06-26

That the said Humphreys and
Thompson, while attorneys for said
John X. Sumner, in the said matter,
arranged a settlement whereby said
Maria s. Davis received from John X.
Sumner the sum of Ten Thousand
100000 Dollars for herself, and Five
4 nousand $4,000 Dollars for the pay.
ment of her attorneys, in satisfaction
of any claims, present or future that
she might or could have against said
John K. Sumner, by reason of the
trust deed aforesaid which release the
said Humphreys and Thompson, as at.
torneys for John X. Sumner, dictated
and procured.
That in connection with, and as a
part OF, said settlement, William El.
lis, John Ellis and Victoria Ellis Buf.
fandeau, hereafter designated as the
Ellises. were given Thirty Thousand
(30,000) Dollars of said money paid by
the Oahu Railroad & Land Company,
but that said Humphreys and Thomp.
son, as attorneys for John X. Sumner,
procured no consideration for said
thirty Thousand (3O,000) Dollars from
said Ellises to John X. Sumner, and
procured no settlement or release from
them, of any kind, whereby John X q.
Sumner was to be relieved from future
2 claims by them under the trust
though well knowing that said John X.
Sumner intended that said payment
should be in full release of all claims
against him in the matter of guardian
: ship.
That said Humphreys and said
Thompson. in consideration of theii
services in the guardianship case and
ia the suit by the Oahu Railroad and
: Land Company VS.. sumner and the
" settlement Of the same, charged the
7 said John X. Sumner a fee Of Two
! Thousand Five Hundred (2,5OO) Dol
lars, which said John X. Sumner paid
That IN arranging said settlement
: said Humphreys and said Thompson
acted contrary to the interest OF sait
John X. Sumner. their client, and 9th
erwise than his attorneys should have
8 acted. and that said II. +. Highton de
u ciined to take part in said settlement
y or to advise the same and protested
u against said settlement.
That after this settlement, and tn,
= payment of these moneys, Maria S,
her, 1902, discontinued her suit in tn,
= matter of the guardianship.
V.
That thereafter, to-wit. on or abou
: the 2lst day of October, 1902. John X
7 Sumner employed J. a. Magoon a.
J, his attorney.at.law. and caused tn,
moneys remaining in the hands of Ro
u pert, as Trustee, to-wit, the sum o.
I Forty-elght Thousand and Twenty-Five
+ (4S,O25) Dollars. to be given up to him
J, John X. Sumner, and to be deposited
with Bishop & Company, bankers. Ho
I nolulu.
VI.
Subsequent thereto, on or about DC
n tober 22nd, 1902, said Humphreys, as
l. attorney for the three Ellises, causet
a letter to be written to Bishop
Company, notifying them that tn,
| hOHtys SO uSDOSittu ny oulllHtT WtIt
: trust funds deposited in violation o.
the trust deed OF September nth
1898. In said letter, which the tire,
Ellises signed, they stated that they
were the beneficiaries apparent in the
b said trust, and denied any control Of
y said John X. Sumner over said trus
. fInds SO deposited with Bishop
Q Company, and warning Bishop 4 Com
!. pany not to pay to any one, save t
o the order Of the Trustee. and stating
d that they were about to take lega
!. steps to enforce their alleged claims.
5 That said Humphreys and Thomp
o son well knew at this time, and haC
e already set up, as attorneys for Johr
l. *. Sumner, In the guardianship case
Il that the moneys were subject to tn,
d control OF Sumner. and Humphreys
|. and Thompson had already taken al
u. active part in the distribution Of tn,
J. larger part of said fund. That the,
well knew that all the alleged claims
OF the Ellises had been compromise,
J. and paid and settled. That Humph
r. reys in causing said letter to be writ
r, ten was acting against the interests o
g his client Sumner In an alleged CLAIM
8 hostile to Sumner, which he had beef
n employed by Sumner to quiet and sat
Dr.. isfy. That in so preventing Sumne
d from disposing Of his money in tn,
D. bank, he was acting without faith t.
It his client in the very matter of trus
II which he had been employed by Sum
ner to clear of all demands; that in 81
d doing Humphreys caused his forme
N clients money to be tied up and acteC
g. without professional propriety, wa
II guilty of professional misconduct AM
p infidelity to his client Sumner.
II That acting for the Elises, Humph
e reys went to Magoon, acting for Sum
ner, and proposed to enter into al
IS agreement with him whereby MagooI
should induce Sumner, his client, /,
q submit to a further and extortionat,