The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1903-01-10
SUMNER ROBBED
SAYS De BOLT
CONTINUED from Page u

Continued from Page H.
to state that the old man has a right at
action to recover the $4,000 paid to
! Maria S. Davis, and the $4,000 to Vic
! toria ,Buffandeau and $4,000 to Will
liam S. Ellis, and $4,000 paid to John
| 5. Ellis, from the simple fact that it
was paid without consideration and un-
der misrepresentation, and the same
thing relates to Mr.. Cathcart Now as
to the attorneys fees, the evidence
shows that S2500 was paid to Mr.. High
| ton, and S2500 was paid to Mr.. Magoon,
! $500 to Mr.. Davis and $2500 to the firm
| of Humphreys Thompson and Watson,
! Now without Stating expressly the
thought l have in my mind, l want to
say that it seems to me the old man
| has been robbed.
1T may be remarked also" continued
the court, that it seemed immaterial
| who the attorneys were, John X. Sum
ner paid the bills all the same, whe-
Their they were for or against him. The
! fees were at least one hundred per cent
| too much, if not greater. The Catholic
church received 100000, whether as a
| gift or not l don't know, but it seems
to me that it is able to pay your attor-
/ ney's fee out of that sum. | don't
think John X. Sumner should be called
upon to pay out any more money. when
out of $4,000 he has only $4,000 left,
, andNhas had to fight for that. 1t is
about time a halt was called
The court was replying in these re-
marks to an application Of T. McCants
/ Stewart for fee as attorney for the
late Bishop. Stewart did not get any
of the $4,000 and took no part in the
. real contest being only the representa-
tive of The late bishop in his efforts to
get rid of the whole mater. The court
held that he must look to the Bishops
estate for his fee.
Davis and Humphreys both COM
planned of the courts severe criticism,
the former referring to work he had
done free for widows and orphans and
. declaring that it was through his eff
forts that Sumner had got $4,000 for
his lands and instead of 100000. Hum
phreys said he had done other work
for Sumner. Humphreys added that
the courts remarks were sufficient to
| warrant the attorney general in bring
ing disbaTment proceedings against all
! the attorneys in the case. Judge De
Bolt however, refused to modify his
| statements, remarking that it didn't
appear that any extra services had been
performed, and the fees aggregating
! $4,000 were outrageous
De Bolts decision, given at once after
| the close of the arguments yesterday,
was in effect that Summers trust deed
to Bishop Gulstan was a revOCable deed
| and had been revoked, also that all
parties had agreed to it's revocation,
| including those who were seeking to
stated that he did not think the So
called heirs had either a legal or a
| moral claim on Summers property. The
court said in part:
I'VE find him selling property FOR
$4,000 which it is intimated is worth
$250,0OO, and he appears in court with
the $4,000 slipping away and vanish
ing excepting $4S,02j.
II will try and undertake TO account
for this; 100000 was paid to the Ellises,
$4,000 to Maria S. Davis, $4,000 was
paid to the various attorneys in the
case, and it seemed absolutely imm1-
terial who the attorneys worked for,
John X. Sumner paid those who work
ed against him and those who worked
for him, alike. Then there were $1,000
paid to r. w. Cathcart, for which
Cathcart says he worked for Sumner,
and judged from the tone of his testi-
mony that he did not expect to receive
any pay for it. Mr.. Sumner says that
all he did was to look over some ac-
counts for him, and he paid him fifteen
dollars for that; and 100000 to the
| Catholic church. This does not quite
account for all the money, and the evil
came of the remainder.
ION the other hand if this deed was
not revoked by the acts of the old man,
it seems established beyond question
that there was an agreement between
all parties concerned that it should be
terminated, and that the Ellis children
and Maria Davis entered into an ar
arrangement by which the whole matter
was settled.
"Now it seems also that the Bishop
understood that the trust was closed
i! he considered that he was still trus-
tee, he would have claimed possession
of this money. But we find that Ma
COON and Sumner went to the church,
where there was a meeting, and the
Bishop went over his accounts, and
found that the books showed balance
of $4S,O25 for which he drew check
and handed to John X. Sumner Why
did the Bishop do that? Because he
understood that the trust was terminal
ed.
Then there is the revocation in
court All the facts and circumstances
point to the fact that the deed was
revocable; it was testamentary in char
acter, and the peculiar circumstances
under which it was executed, show that
Il it was not revocable, then the ac-
ton of all parties concerned has reNOk-
ed it, The fact that 1t is revoked might
be accounted for in a half dozen diff
ferent ways, and 1t is not necessary TO
rely simply on this statement of fact.
's,The deed on its face seems to have
such language as to give the idea that
it was intended only to give power
of attorney to the Bishop, and though
he is called the trustee he was simply
the agent of John X. Sumner. there
fore hold that the deed in evidence has
been revoked and the trust thereby
created is terminated and that all the
property which appears to have been
conveyed by reason of the termination
of the trust and the settlements re-
vests in John X. Sumner and that the
$4S,O25 now deposited in court Is the
money and property of John *. sumner
and that the same be delivered and