Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1903-07-02
CLASH in WORDY BOUT
CONTINUED from Page ~

Judge Humphreys had said he could
not advise in the matter while he was
on the bench and recommended wit
ness to go to Hartwell for advice.
Witness had another conversation
with Humphreys in the Judiciary
building, with her two brothers. ask
ing Humphreys advice in the case OF
the Railroad Company against Bishop
Ropert.
The Judge had said he could give no
advice one way of the other until he
was off the bench. He would recon-
mend Mr.. Highton, and afterwards in.
troduced the Elllses to Highton. They
all went to the Bishop and talked the
matter over. Highton charged a fee
of $500 to the Ellises. Sumner was
not here at the time. highton, witness
! and her brothers met later at the Ha-
waiian Hotel and discussed Sun ner's
will.
Sumner. Highton. Mr.. Cathcart, vii
| lie and John Ellis met at Hightons of
flee In the Boston building. The plac
| ing of $4,000 from the sale of the Sum
ner land in the hands of X. W. Cath
cart in trust was discussed. Humph
reys was called in. AS attorney for
w. s. Ellis he objected to the trust
deed. saying If such a thing ever was
done 1t would be enough to place the
whole lot under guardianship. Humph.
rcys had told them that a larger price
/ ntfuht 10 ha from thR "a
company for the land, perhaps $780,.
600.
AT the Boston building meeting I
heard you make no allusion to putting
Sumner under guardianship" said wit
ness.
II never told Sumner that had EN-.
ployed you as his attorney. said I'd
like to have you in the case, but he oh
jected. saying he did not want to have
you In the case at all.
"One Sunday afternoon uncle said
he wanted to sell the property and my.
self, my brothers and the church were
to get large amount each"
'Did you ever hear Sumner say that
either Thompson, Watson or myself
were his attorneys" asked Humph.
reys.
NO.
Witness said that during the first
day of the guardianship case Highton
had asked where Thompson was, say
ing that Thompson represented the FL
lises and ought to be present. Willie
Ellis telephoned for Thompson while
he was already on his way to court
Thompson appeared for the Ellises
and Highton represented Sumner.
A letter from Highton to Sumner
and the Ellises and reply to the same
were shown witness by Humphrey
for identification. Witness, asked L
state where she had signed the reply
said that II was In Highton's offic,
while her brothers were present. The.
went to Highton by his appointment
Magoon read the letter and aske,
them all to sign to protect him fror
having anything to do with the Davi
settlement, which he spoke OF as
blackmailing scheme.
Witness never told Humphreys tina
she had signed any such letter 4
Highton's Office. Humphreys had ash
ed witness II she had ever signed tn
letter, showing her a copy; witnes
had said she had not signed. She wa
surpried upon learning that she had 4
reality signed something the content
OF which she knew nothing. Humpi
rcys had told her that II he had know
she and her brothers had signed an
such letter he would never have take
the case.
During the trial of Ropert VS.. Sun
ner witness brothers were in Sa
Francisco.
When Sumner arrived here from Tt
hiti, Highton's Office was In one OF tn
rooms of Humphreys. Thompson ,
Watson. This was stated in answe
to Humphreys direct question. Humpl
reys explained to the court that Sun
ner had testified that Mrs. Buffandea
had first taken him to Humphreys o
fee. AS a matter Of fact, they ha
gone to see Highton, who also had
Temporary Office there.
Thompson examined Mrs. Buffai
deau. She said he had represente
the Ellises. Highton had been Sun
ner's attorney.
Andrews cross.examined witness
Shortly afternoon a recess was take
until 1880 o'clock.