The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1903-09-01

put John X. Sumner under guardian.
ship again, and which they refused tc
heed. Judge Dickey yesterday award.
ed judgment against the Sumner heirs
for the total amount sued upon. and
they Will have to pay unless a higher
court reverses the district court ruling.
From the evidence, 1t appears, that.
just before the Supreme Court render
ed a decision awarding to old man
Sumner his s4S,025, the Ellis heirs call
ed upon Assistant United States At
torney Dunno and wanted him to in
stitute guardianship proceedings to
have the old mans money tied up
again. They were referred to Breck-
ons, and the United States Attorney
advised them that they had no case.
Then they wanted an injunction to re-
strain the payment of the $4S, O25 but
the fee which Breckons wanted was
too much for the children who had
already received $4,000 apiece from
their grand uncle. Breckons wanted n
$500 retainer and $500 additional II
he succeeded and $1,000 If he failed.
This was too much for the heirs and
they went to another lawyer As will
be remembered Judge De Bolt prompt
ly threw out of court the second Ellis
petition to have the old man declared
insane, and this case Is now before
the Supreme Court John W. Cathcart
represented the Ellses in this case
and received $500 for the work:
There was practically no defense to
the suit, aside from legal questions
which, E. NJ Watson. appearing for
the defendants, claimed entitled them
to non-suit. Then too Eugene Buff |
fandeau said he never thought he
would have to pay $3.50 just for asking
man question. Judge Dickey
thought differently.
BRECKoNS' TESTIMONY.
r. w. Breckons, one of the plaintiffs,
was the first witness. He testified that
the Ellises had come to him from Mr..
Dunne's office and asked for an opin-
ion relative to the bringing of guard
ianship proceedings in the Sumner
case He said the opinion given by him
was very unfavorable and that he
strongly advised that no guardianship
proceeding be instituted as it could
not be maintained. Later he had rend-
cred a written opinion to the same
erect. When the Ellises came to see
him the second time he orally told
them that they had no case. At that
time the opinion had already been type
written. Mr.. Breckons said he work.
ed on the case several days and look
ed up the Sumner records and author
tiles. Ellis wanted him to go along
VttI IItt.. 4,
the case but he did not go.
DUMMIES TESTIMONY.
]. ]. Dunno testified that Willie Ellis
and Buffandeau had come to his house
one afternoon, June 18th, to consult
In regard to the Sumner case. He told
them to call at the office the next
day. and the next morning told them
that he was very busy with important
matters and he did not care to take
the case. During the conversat ton the
name of Mr.. Breckons was suggested
and Mr.. Dunno advised them to see
him. He was in his office at the time
and they called upon Breckons Later
Dunno was called into the room. Mr..
Breckons was doubtful about the pro-
priety of bringing proceedings to iva
press John K. Sumner with gua:J.
an again, but told the boys that he I
would look into the question. Mr.
Breckons then looked up the matter.
examined the records and authorities
md wrote IN opinion. Mr.. Dunno
'aid that afterwards an injunction was
discussed in order to tie up Summers
money and he spent an afternoon ind
-vening in looking up the matter. The
witness said he thought $3.50 small
ee fer the work done.
on cross NJ mination Mr. Dunno I
stated that he had not told the Elliss
hat he could not take the case because
lie had the Motley will case.
did not Mr. Breckons tell them at t
he start that they had no case?" ask /
ID Watson on cross-examination. =.
Il don't think he did. Mr. Breckons
s not a man to make a rash or ex-
RENE statement of that kind. He is t
90 cautious for that. They did want [
lis services and they got good advice"
aid Dunno.
who suggested the injunction pro-
eedings?" T
1T don't know for certain, it may L
ave been one of the Ellises or 1t may
ave been Mr.. Breckons or myself"
"Mr. Ellis is not an attorney Is hep" C.
you We're the doctor" Il
IT don't know but what 1t might a
ave been Mr. Ellis. He has absorbed =,
good deal of legal knowledge in =,
Ripping about the court corridors"
JUDGE HIGHToN TESTIFIES.
Judge II. f. Highton next testified
$ to the value of the services rend-
red. He said that $3.50 was very
loderate compensation" He didn't
elieve the service was worth $500. but b,
100 would not have been too much. :,
1t is a question of the calibre of the "
said Mr. Highton. Z
There is difference then between te
n opinion by brilliant lawyer, which o,
lie courts do not sustain, and one by
poor but honest lawyer who is up h,
ED by the courts?" asked Watson. -
II can't answer a conundrum of y,
lat kind. The question is unintelli- IL
ble," was Hishton's reply. ~
JUDGE sTANLEY'S VIEWS. bc
Judge Stanley testified that "any- ne
ling less than $3.50 would be ridicu-
us-$250 Is very reasonable You az