The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1903-08-12

sion of the sum of s4S,025 now on de-
post in Bishops Bank and appointing
him Summers attorney in fact as well
as of record to represent him in all
litigation, etc.
WAS NOT UNDERSTOOD.
The court credits the evidence of
Sumner and r. W. Davis that they
understood the power of attorney to
refer solely to the business of getting
the money out of the bank and did
not take it to mean an engagement Of
George A Davis as Summers attorney
in the Ropert case and other mat
tiers.
The power of attorney is in the
respondents handwriting" the opin-
ion says, land r. w. Davis testified
that he was unable to read it very
well. That is not difficult to UNDER
stand. The Hawaiian translation I'M
der such circumstances could not
have been of much value"
DEMAND FOR FEE.
1.-The decision of this court in the
Ropert case, declaring the s4S,025 to
be the property of Sumner free from
any trust, was rendered June %, 1908.
Sumner and r. w. Davis at the time
were in Koolau but were promptly
notified of the result and asked by
Summers attorneys to come at once
to Honolulu. In pursuance of that
request they went to the house of
j. A Magoon at $3.50 o'clock D. m,
there finding respondent and Magoon.
Respondent introduced the subject of
his fee. He said that he wanted his
fee adjusted and settled, that the note
. L. 81
only $4,000. Sumner said that that
was too much and that $500 would be
ample and offered that amount"
Upon this matter the court cites the
testimony regarding the boisterous de-
mands of respondent for his fee the
following morning, when Summer and
r. w. Davis met him at Magoon's Of
flee. Sumner had held out against the
demand the previous day:
The fee was again talked of. The
respondent continued to demand $4,000
and Sumner still held out for $500.
The respondent, holding a paper in
his hand and shaking it, said that
he would garnishee the money. L
will stop the money, I will garnishee.
that money shall never be paid until
1 get my fee, l will tie that
money up in the bank Sumner and
r. w. Davis then spoke to each other
for a few moments in Hawaiian and
finally Sumner offered to pay $4,000.
This the respondent at once accepted
and the parties thereupon appeared
before the Circuit Judge and there
check for $1,000 in respondents favor
was signed by Sumner and the fund
in the custody of the court was paid
over to him."
COERCED BY THREATS.
I'VE are satisfied from the evidence
that Summers final consent to pay 81
900 was due solely to the respondents
manner and undue insistence and to
his threats to tie up the money and
was reluctantly given in order to avoid
the delays and the annoyance of fur
Their litigation. That the respondent
at that time we'll knew that the man
he was dealing with was weak-minded
and easily influenced, is undisputable.
In his answer in this case he specifieal-
ly admits the truth of the allegation
in the information that the said ]. K.
Sumner was a man of upwards of the
age of "a years with little or no knowl-
edge of business, etc, all of which
facts were we'll known to said Geo. A.
Davis. In TIE decision then just filed,
this court, unanimous on that point,
had held that Sumner was weak
minded and easily influenced The
petition for guardianship was sworn
to by the respondent himself, and not
on information and belief; and in the
injunction suit. in support of an APP
plication for the appointment OF Ma
ria s. Davis as next friend of Sum-
ner. the respondent swore that Sum-
ner was a person of unsound mind and
had been insane for a long period of
time. The respondent we'll knew, too,
Of Summers dread of litigation"
AN AFTERTHOUGHT.
Respondents contention that the fee
of $1,000 was intended to cover future
as we'll as past services, the court be-
lieves tc be entirely an afterthought
and that at the time the fee was adj
justed and paid it was neither the in
tention nor the understanding of the
parties that all or any services to be
thereafter rendered by the respond
ent were being included or paid in
that fee.
1t was true that after the fee had
been paid the respondent, when ask
ed by Mr.. Magoon if he would help
him out in the guardianship proceed
ings, told the questioner to call on
him when he wanted him. The court
quotes respondents evidence that he
felt he ought to help, as he had got
good deal of money out of Sumner and
proceeds:
But it is not what respondent now
thinks or has thought after the $1,000
was paid that is to be considered in
this connection, hut what the under
standing between the parties was in
paying and receiving the fee 1t is
clear from the evidence that all that
was mentioned or considered while
the amount of the fee was being dis
cussed was past service. 1 have
worked hard the respondent said
not, L have also much work yet to
do Can't we make a settlement"
the respondent asked. want to get
my money and I want to wash my
hands. Mr. Sumner. of your transac-
tons and before Judge De Bolt, aft
er the check was signed, sumner
here is your note for $4,000. you nave
paid me. we are quits, that is satls-
factory As if more were needed, an
entry dated June &c. 1908, made by
respondent by way of receipt in sum