The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1903-06-28
Accuses ]. A. Magoon and George
A. Davis of Making Pro-
posais for Extortion.
to His Own Course the Ex-Judge Denies
That He Has Been Anything But
the Soul of Homer.

A s Humphreys yesterday afternoon
filed an answer for himself in the mat
ter Of A S. Humphreys and Frank E.
Thompson, attorneys-at-law of the Su-
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 useG
against them in the information. "On
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 a 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 K. Sumner in
the railway case. He admits that the
firm name of Humphreys, Thompson &
Watson was signed to the answer in
mthe guardianship suit. but AYERS that
'2he had absolutely no knowledge OF that
fact until after he had read the in
formation Of the Attorney-General. He
alleges that Thompson subscribed the
firm name without any knowledge or
information as to its contents, and with
the express. distinct and explicit under
standing that the firm were not and
would not be the attorneys tCr John
X. Sumner in said matter or any other
matter whatever.
Respondent denies that during the
pendency of said action he acquired a
fun knowledge Of the contents OF the
trust deed made by Sumner to Bishop
GuIssan, on the contrary alleging he
never saw the deed and was ignorant
OF its contents, except in a general
way. until about October %. 1902, and
after he had written the letter TO Bish-
op * Co. for the EHises.
Mr.. Humphreys denies that he had
anything to do with arranging the set
tIement with Mrs. Davis. whereby she
received $4,000 fer herself and 5000 for
her attorneys. also denies that as part
of that settlement the EIlises were Civ
en- $50. 900, but admits that it was paid
TO them at the same time as the pay
ment 10 Mrs. Davis.
Respondent denies that no considera-
tion passed from the Ellises to Sumner
for the $4,000. On the contrary. he al
\ leges that the consideration therefor
WAS the consent of the said EIiises to
the payment by the said Sumner to the
Bishop Of Panopolis OF the sum Of S1O,-
900, and the payment TO said Maria S.
Davis OF the sum of $4,000, out OF the
said moneys received from said Oahu
Railway * Land Company and in
which moneys it was then believed said
Ellises had an interest as remainder
men,
Respondent admits that no release
was given by the EIlises and AYERS that
it was we'll understood and agreed that
they 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
:
out of the moneys received by the
Bishop from the railway company with
the consent of all parties, il being we'll
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.
sas he was not their client. and it was
their sole duty to represent the Ellises,
who were their clients.
Humphreys denies that II. F. High
ton declined to take part in the set
tlement 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 6. Da-
vis's suit and the employment OF ]. a.
8laeoon as counsel by Sumner are ad-
mitted, together with the respondents