The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1903-08-11

and he is hereby suspended from acting
as an attorney or counselor at law in
the courts of this Territory for the
period of one year from this date, and
that the respondent A. S. Humphreys
be and he is hereby disbarred, and that
his name be and it is hereby stricken
from the roll of attorneys and counsel
ors of the courts of this Territory"
Acknowledgement l.. Andrews and
Assistant to the Acknowledgement P.
L. Weaver in support of the complaint.
Respondents in person; John w. Cath
cart also for respondent F. E. Thomp-
son.
GALBRAITH'S DISSENT.
Justice Galbraith makes the follow
ing general remarks in opening his
opinion of dissent:
Il am compelled to dissent from
many of the findings made and the
judgment pronounced In the foregoing
opinion. although 1 do concur in the
finding that the respondents were gull
ty of professional misconduct and i'm
propriety in appearing against John K.
Sumner in the Ropert suit after hav-
ing appeared of record for him in the
guardianship proceedings However.
am not convinced that the respondents
can be properly charged with turpitude
for so doing 1t is not found that there
was any contractual relations existing
between Sumner and the respondents
or that the relation of attorney and
client existed between them to it's full
extent and the evidence wholly fails
to show that by reason of their con-
nection with the guardianship case they
obtained any secrets or special in
formation that was used against Sum
ner in the Ropert case. There was no
betrayal Of confidence, for Sumner re-
posed no confidence in either of them,
nor does it appear that they gained any
advantage in the latter suit by reason
of their connection with the former"
SOME CONCLUSIONS.
Justice Galbraith. in his discussion
of the testimony, sustains largely the
side of the respondents. Some of his
observations are quoted below:
LAS to the allegation in Summers an
swer I'm the guardianship case that the
property was Summers and he coald
do what he pleased with 1T and the
repetition of that statement in High
tons letter, 1 do not attach any partlc-
ular Importance to either. Neither was
a correct statement either of fact or
law. At the time the answer was hled
and the letter written Sumner did not
own the property. 1t belonged to Blsh-
Cd Ropert. as trustee. and had been so
held since September. 1898, and the deed
under which the Bishop held the prop
erty was on its face irrevocable. This
court said on this question in the In
re Humphreys decision. ante p. -, the
deed was prima facie irrevocable and
il was only in view of extraneous evil
dence taken in connection with the
terms of the deed that the court was !
led to its conclusion and as to whether |
such extraneous evidence was sufficient !
the court was divided So at the time
that answer was prepared and the let
ter written no careful lawyer could
have advised that the deed was re
voca BILE and that the property belonged
TO Sumner and that he could do what
he pleases with it. He had already
it in September. 1898.
JUSTIFIEs BELLICOSITY.
II do not think ii necessary in this
either to vindicate the cour-
age of any witness or to defend the
1rowess of the respondents. This is
side issue that may be properly rele-
gated to the ring side L respectfully
decline to act as referee on such a
question.
Looking at the facts from the re-
pondents' view point, and that is the
-iew point the court should assume in
PASSING on the propriety of their con-
luct in the presence of the court. it is
lot surprising that the respondents
.houid have shown some feeling to-
Yards Henry E. Highton and j. Alfred
lagoon. Since from such view point !
he former had been guilty or gross
Implicitly towards them and the lat
er. during the hearing. was firing on
hem from ambush. Why should not
he respondents shell the wood for
lagoon? 1t was ]. Alfred Magoon VINO
He'd the charges with the Attorney
General and who at the hearing, not IN
he omen but from the side line was
furnishing the greater part Of the evl-
ence introduced in support OF the
harges, after he had procured from
he Attorney General a certihcate OF