The Hawaiian gazette., 1903-06-30

A. 5. humphreys yesterday alterHooh
filed an answer for himself in the mat
ter Of A. s. Humphreys and Frank E.
Thompson, attorneys-at-law of the SUI
preme Court. After admitting the part
nership of Humphreys, Thompson &
Watson, the respondent denies all the
charges against himself and Frank
Thompson, quoting the terms USED
against them in the information. ION
the contrary respondent AYERS that his
conduct as a member of the bar of this
honorable court has always been mark
ed by absolute fidelity to his clients at
all times and under all circumstances
and by desire to serve them to the
best of his skill and ability and to their
advantage.
He denies that he procured himself to
be the attorney Of John X. Sumner in
the railway case. He admits that the
firm name of Humphreys, Thompson &
Watson was signed to the answer in
the guardianship suit, but ayers that
he had absolutely no knowledge of that
fact until after he had read the in
formation of the Acknowledgement. He
alleges that Thompson subscribed the
information as to it's contents, and with
the express, distinct and explicit under
standing that the firm were not and
would not be the attorneys for John
K. Sumner in said matter or any other
matter whatever
Respondent denies that during the
tendency of said action he acquired a
full knowledge of the contents of the
trust deed made by Sumner to Bishop
Gulstan, on the contrary alleging he
never saw the deed and was ignorant
of it's contents, except in a general
way, until about October %, 1902, and
after he had written the letter to Bsh-
OPP & Co. for the Elises.
Mr.. Humphreys denies that he had
anything to do with arranging the set
Element with Mrs. Davis, whereby she
received $4,000 for herself and $1,000 for
her attorneys, also denies that as part
of that settlement the Ellises were CIV
en- $50, 000 but admits that it was paid
to them at the same time as the pay
ment to Mrs. Davis.
Respondent denies that no considera
tion passed from the Ellises to Sumner
for the 100000. On the contrary, he al
leges that the consideration therefor
was the consent of the said Ellises to
IN
ishop of panopolis of the sum of $780,
200, and the payment to said Maria S.
Davis of the sum of $15,O0O out of the
said moleys received from said Oahu
Railway & Land Company and in
which moneys it was then believed said
JIllisef had an interest as remainder
men,
RESPONDENT admits that no release
wat given by the Ellises and AYERS that
it Mas we'll understood and agreed that
tey should not give any release.
He denies that either he or Thompson
Charged Sumner a fee of $500 for ser
Vices in the guardianship and railway
suits, and AYERS that the $500 was paid
to Humphreys, Thompson & Watson
out of the moneys received by the
Bishop from the railway company with
the consent of all parties, it being well
understood that the fee was charged
by the firm to the Ellises for services
rendered to them in and about the dis
bursement of said money. He admits
that neither he nor Thompson was in
spired by any desire to serve Sumner,
as he was not their client, and it was
their sole duty to represent the Ellises,
who were their clients.
Humphreys denies that H. E. High
Element or made any protest against it,
but is informed and believes that High
ton was present when the distribution
took place in his CHighton's) Office and
did not protest then or at other time.
The discontinuance of Maria S. Da-
yiss suit and the employment of j. A.
Magoon as counsel by Sumner are adj
mitted, together with the respondents
authorship of the letter to Bishop d
Co. At the time it was written he
says he did not know the moneys We're
under control of Sumner, and he denies
that he had ever taken any part in the
distribution of the larger part of the
funds. He denies that he ever acted as
attorney for Sumner in contending that
ne was the owner of the money, and
that he knew all the claims of the
Ellises had been compromised.
CHARGES AGAINST OTHERS.
Humphreys denies the charge that
he made a proposal to Magoon for eX-
torting more money from Sumner, on
the contrary averring that all PROPOSE
lions for compromise, except as herein
after stated, came from Magoon and
Geo. A. Davis. He admits having in
conversation with Magoon said he
would prevent by every and all legal
proceedings he could possibly invoke,
the withdrawal by Sumner of the trust
funds.
Respondent admits the information
as to appearances of attorneys in the
suit for new trustee. and that he pre-
pared tina answer for the Ellises with |
out his name appearing therein, but
denies that he did not appear in such
answer because he knew he had no
right to appear against his client
Sumner" He denies that the new
trusteeship suit was for the purpose