Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1903-07-27
Attorney MaGUUN ANSWERS
CONTINUED from Page 81

! follows:
Honolulu. March 10th, 1903
In the matter of GUSTAV Ropert, Trus.
tee Of J. X. Sumner, VS.. J. X. Sum.
ner. ct al.
-. A. Magoon, Esq, Attorney at Law,
Sir: The Chief Justice having in
formed me of your request that the
Court investigate the conduct of the
attorneys in said cause, and further
! having Informed me that the Court
for obvious reasons had declined to
make such investigation at that time
but had intimated that 1t would take
the usual course in such cases by refer
! ring the matter TO the Attorney Cen
eral and having instructed me to in
yestigate the conduct of counsel in said
cause and take such further action IL
needed therein as the said matter
would see INTO me to call forth"
81 have the honor to request that you
forward to me at your earliest con-
venience the statements which you con-
slider require my investigation. | have
forwarded a similar letter to the other
I lawyers connected with said case"
Il am sir,
Very respectfully yours,
"(SgdD LORRIN AN9REwS,
Attorney General"
| That respondent on the 18th day Of
March. 1903. wrote to said Lorrin An
drcws Il reply to said letter, the COM
mencing and concluding paragraphs be.
ing as follows:
Yours of the 10th instant, with ref
crenCe to the matter of investigation
Of the conduct of counsel in the Sum.
ner case, is at hand. and in reply there
to | would state. that while | am at q
loss to understand the conduct of Mr..
a. S. Humphreys in this matter it
seems to me that as he desires 1t, II Is
very proper that an investigation
should be made"
Il stand ready to give you any as
sistance in this matter that Is in my
power, and to the end that a full and
complete investigation may be made -
and at the time of the delivery OF the
said letter, respondent also delivered to
said Lorrin Andrews, Attorney Cen
eral. copy of the affidavit of Victoria
+. Buifandeau, JnO. $. Ellis and VIM
5. Ellis dated the 2Gth day Of Febru-
airy, 1903, the original of which was
duly filed in this Honorable Court,
wherein i, is stated that on the 3lst
day of October, 1902, said Sumner ex-
eCuted. acknowledge and delivered TO
""!a Z. W. Davis the aforesaid deed Of
trust, and on the 3rd day of November
said Sumner executed, acknowledged
and delivered to said r. w. Davis an
which were recorded, and that said at
flants learned of the execution and de-
livery by said Sumner, of said deeds to
said r. w. Davis, through A. S. Hum
phreys, on or about the 23rd day Of
January. 1903 land that said Magoon
prepared, and said Sumner executed.
what purpOrted to be a cancellation OF
said deed of trust, which cancellation
WAS acknowledged on January Goth,
1903. and within four days after said
MagOon learned that said Humphreys
had knowledge of the execution and
delivery OF said deed of trust: that the
said Lorrin Andrews, Attorney Cen
eral as aforesaid. with said affidavit in
his hands in his report TO this Honor
able Supreme Court said:
81 find absolutely nothing in the ac-
tions of J. A. Magoon. Esquire. upon
which charges could be based before
your Honorable Court"
That tho nttitn1n pf tbn gntI I n,,i,
Andrews at this time Is entirely incon-
sistent with the Statement In his re-
port, and this deponent believes that
this shifting of the attitude of the At
torney General is due to too sensitive
regard for what might be taken as pub.
lie opinion, as reflected in the columns
of the Pacific Commercial Advertiser
which paper has relentlessly, malic-
iously and continuously traduced and
maligned respondent.
And this respondent believes that
the statement contained In the said at.
fidavit with reference to the said trust
deed to said X. w. Davis, was intend.
ed TO improperly influence the Court
and had no bearing upon any of the is.
sues in the matter Of the motion to adj
vance the Ropert- Sumner cause on the
Supreme Court calendar, and that SC
far as respondent remembers. no meh.
ton was made by A. S. Humphreys in
his argument of the said trust deed
nor was any mention made Of it In the
brief OF A. S. Humphreys filed in this
Court in the said matter, except the
following:
"All of the circumstances under
which the deposit was made, and Ma.
goon's relations with parties who have
been adverse to Mr.. Sumner for fifteen
years would seem to indicate that in
placing an embargo on Summers money
he was influenced by a discreditable
and thoroughly selfish motive. and this
is borne out by the execution OF trust
deeds to his client, Wally Davis, i'm
mediately thereafter"
J 1t will be seen from the above that
the only purpose for which even the
critical eye OF opposing counsel cOuld