The Hawaiian gazette., 1903-06-30

NPROSECUTED
Attorney. General
Andrews Files
Report.
(From Saturdays Dailyo

Attorney General Lorrin Andrews
Yesterday morning presented before
the Supreme Court his report on the
conduct of attorneys in the sumner
trust case, At the outset he states
that he undertook the investigation
nv request of the court, which had
been moved to act at the instance or
A. S. Humphreys, with the acqules-
cence of j. A. Magoon and George "A.
Davis. His conclusions bear serious
charges of malpractice against A. D
Humphreys. with a demand for ex-
3 plantations made with regret upon +.
Z. Thompson. They carry complete
exoneration of j. A. Magoon and Il. M.
Watson, likewise of George A. Davis
so far as it is thought the investiga-
tion could go.
Annexed to the report Is a formal
complaint of professional misconduct
against Messrs. Humphreys and
Thompson.
Mr.. Humphreys being in court stated
that he was ready for trial, and the
complaint was set for hearing on Mon
day morning at 10 o'clock.
THE INVESTIGATION.
The Attorney General, in relating
the steps he had taken, reported sub
stantially as follows on the replies ne
had received to his request of the at
torneys to make statements:
J. A. Magoon made specific charges
against A. S. Humphreys and the firm
of Humphreys, Thompson & Watson.
George A. Davis detailed the Valu-
able services he had rendered his eli
ents in the various causes leading up
to and including the cause mentioned,
and concluded by stating that he had
no charges to make.
Humphreys, Thompson e Watson
stated that they had no time, then,
to present the matter, and asked for
time until after the decision of the
Supreme Court in the sumner case.
HIS CONCLUSIONS.
The Attorney General refers to the
unpleasant duty given him, relates
somewhat of his mode of investigation
and submits the following conclusions:
l. l find absolutely nothing in the
actions of j. A. Magoon. ESD, upon
which charges could be based before
your Honorable Court.
z. IN regard 10 lile CdSe VI Nco. "a
Davis, while criticism might be in
dulged in as to his methods, and the
amount of fee charged by him to
Maria S. Davis for his services, yet
these are matters between the attorney
and client, upon which no charges
could be based in the absence of OBJ
lection by the client.
8. In regard to the firm of Hum
phreys, Thompson & Watson, both
from the records in the case, the state
ments of interested parties, and the
personal assurance of Mr. Watson,
have come to the conclusion that he
had absolutely nothing to do with the
case in any of it's phases, and that II
would be unfair and unjust to charge
him before this Honorable Court with
reprehensible conduct as an attorney
and counselor at law.
4. With the greatest reluctance
have further come to the conclusion
that the actions of Frank r. Thomp-
son, Esq, require an explanation in
several particulars, and make it neces-
sary that formal charges against him
should be filed in this Court. From
Mr.. Thompson's we'll known reputation
LOT integrity anu ploleSsiolldi loHoi l
trust he will be able to make an ade-
quate explanation to your Honorable
Court.
5. In regard to the case of A. S.
Humphreys, Esq. I find there are Sc
rious grounds for making charges OF
professional misconduct, and therefore
deem it my duty to file the same In
this Court.
In conclusion I would state that OF
course, my proceedings have been eS
parte, as I have not deemed 1t proper
to pass upon this case as a Trial
Judge, but rather that it was my duty
to act as a prosecutor, II sufficient
grounds We're found whereon to base
charges of professional misconduct
That it has been the most unpleasant
task which I have undertaken since
entered the office of Attorney General
and II is only with the profoundes
regret. and because I cannot see m,
way clear to do otherwise that I ALI
the annexed charges against the gen
tlemen named herein.