The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1903-08-29
ELLIS HEIRS MUST. PAY
FOR SUMNER CASE ADVICE
Judge Dickey Decides They Must Pay Dunno
and Breckons for Opinion That They Failed
to t1eed---OnIy Asked Question.

said that afterwards an injunction va.
discussed in order to tie up Sumner
money aud he spent an afternoon end
evening in looking up the matter. The
witness said he thought $3.50 small
fee for the work done.
On cross NJ mination Mr.. Dunno
stated that he had not told the Ellis :
that he ceuld not take the case because
he had the Motley will case.>
Did not Mr. Breckons tell them at
the start that they had no case?" ask
ed Watson on cross-examination.
II don't think he did. Mr.. Breckons
is not a man to make a rash or ex-
treme statement of that kind. He is
too cautious for that. They did want
his services and they got good advice -
said Dunno.
who suggested the injunction pro-
ceedings?"
.I don't know for certain, it may
have been Mr.. Breckons or myself
''Mr. Ellis is not an attorney is hep
You were the doctor"
'I don't know but what it might
have been Mr.. Ellis. He has absorbed
a good deal of legal knowledge in
skipping about the court corridors"
JUDGE HIGHToN TEsTIFIEs.
Judge H. f. Highton next testified
as TO the value of the services rend-
cred. He said that $3.50 was very
moderate compensation" He didItt
believe the service was worth $500, but
$500 would not have been too much.
1T is a question of the calibre of the
attorneys said Mr.. Highton.
There is a difference then between
1ox oh
the courts 90 not sustain, and one by
n poor ba8 honest lawyer who, is up
held by the courts?" asked Watson.
II can't answer a conundrum of
that kind. The question is unintelli-
gible." was Highton's reply.
JUDGE STANLEY'S VIEWS.
Judge Stanley testified that amy
thing less than $3.50 would be ridicu-
lous-$250 is very reasonable. You
might get some attorneys here to give
an opinion for ten dollars and it
wouldn't be worth that much"
E. A. Douthitt testified that $3.50
was a very moderate charge He
was not cross-examined.
MOTION FOR NON-SUIT.
At the close of the plaintiffs testi-
mony, Mr.. Watson moved for a nom
suit on two grounds. First, that it
was not alleged and had not been prov
ed that the plaintiffs were attorneys,
regularly licensed to practice law. or
that they had complied with the Ter
ritorial laws. Second, that there was
no proof that Dunno and Breckons
were co-partners. and that they had
a right to sue as such. He contended
that there was misjoinder of parties,
and consequently he was entitled to
Mr.. Dunno did not argue the
case. and Judge Dickey promptly de-
MED the motion.
THE DEFENSE.
w. s. Ellis was the first witness for
the defense. He said they had all gone
in to see Breckons on June 10th and
were told that they had no case. This
was before the Supreme Court decision, |
which Ellis said he thought would be |
against them. Re had gone first to |
see Dunno, to see if he couldn't put |
Summer under guardianship and stop |
the influence of other parties. Mr
Dunno had absolutely refused to have |
anything to do with the case and never |
came into the case afterwards. Mr.. |
Breckons told them they had no show |
to put Sumner under guardianship but |
he WOu-d look tne matter up anu -
if there was any other proceeding |
which could be brought. Mr. Breckons |
told them that he wanted retainer OF /
$500 to bring the suit and they didn't [
want anything more to do with H. |
Then they had gone to Mr.. Cathcart |
and he brought suit. They paid him |
4 fee of $500 The case is now in the |
Supreme Court
ONLY ASKED A QUESTION.
Eugene Buffandeau testified that he |
1ad gone with Ellis to see Dunno, so |
that if the decision in the Sumner case |
Continued on Page 1o)