The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1903-07-03

EVIDENCE
History of Sumner
Case in Varied
Versions.
Lively Family Parties
Held in Law
Offices.
Hishton's Opinion Of Geo. A.
Davis-Humphreys Disputes
Records of Circuit Court,

Evidence for the defense in the dis
barment case was on all of yesterday s
session of the Supreme Court. Con-
troversies between counsel over the
competency of questions put were fire.
quent and at times fierce.
The lines of defense, generally, were
that Sumner never employed Hum
phreys, Thompson & Watson as his
counsel. that the counsel fee of $4,000
to Mr.. Highton was originally incurred
as an obligation by the Ellises, that
Thompson was particularly regarded,
and designated by Highton, as legal
representative of the Ellises. that
Humphreys did not come into the
Sumner matters until VIM. S. Ellis
called him suddenly to oppose the Cath
cart trust deed which Sumner was
bent on executing and that Highton
was Summers attorney.
THE WOULD-BE TRUSTEE.
r. W. Cathcart resumed the witness
stand in the morning, for examination
by respondent Thompson, his eXamina-
ton by respondent Humphreys having
been concluded the previous afternoon.
Witness never at any time heard sum-
ner say Humphreys, Thompson & Wat
son were his attorneys; at the Boston
building conference Sumner became
angry with Humphreys for blocking
the deed of trust to Witness; could not
say Highton said he would not darken
the door of George A. Davis.
MRS. BUFFANDEAU.
Mrs. Victoria Ellis Buffandeau was
the next witness. She had known
Humphreys a number of years; went
to see him when he was judge, with
her husband and brothers; desired
Sumner to appoint her agent to collect
rents; Humphreys declined to advise
them while he was on the bench; he
gave the same answer when they visit
ed him at his judges chambers
to consult him about the railway suit,
but he then recommended them to en-
gage Highton; agreed with Highton to
pay him $500.
AT BOSTON BUILDING.
Witness told about the Boston build
ing conference, the same sro-y as pre-
vious witness had given only with GER
tain incidents in higher lights. Hum
phreys came there with her brother
William and objected to the trust deed
that placed $4,000 of the price of land
from the railway company in the
hands of r. w. Cathcart, without a
bond. saying IL was enough to have
them all placed under guardianship
and that a larger price ought to be Sc
cured for the land. She did not hear
say Sumner ought to be |
put under guardianship; never told
Sumner she had employed Hum !
phreys as his attorney; suggested |
his employment but Sumner would not |
have Humphreys; never heard Sumner
say that any member of the firm was
his attorney. In the guardianship case
on the first day Highton asked for
Thompson, saying he ought to be there
as the representative of the Ellises;
Willie Ellis telephoned for Thompson
while he was on his way to court:
Thompson appeared for them, and
Iighton for Sumner.
BLACKMAILING CHARGED.
The letter from Highton to Sumner
and the Ellises already IN evidence
vas shown to witness, with the reply
IF the Ellises accepting it's terms of
settlement. She signed the letter in
Highton's office while her brothers
we're present; when Humphreys asked
Ter if she had signed such letter she
lenied she had, but when he showed
Ter signature she was surprised that
she had signed something without
knowing what it was; Highton had
advised her to sign it to protect him
rom the Davis Matchmaking scheme
talking about the o. r. &
:. Co. purchase, said Highton declined
o carry the deed to the office OF Geo.
\. Davis, saying he would never
arken George A. Davis's door, as he
vas a blackmailer."
Mr.. Davis had entered the court
DOM few moments before this item
( evidence was given.
INTERESTS CLASSIFIED.
Mr.. Thompson having objected to a Z
uestion by the Attorney General as to ,
hose who were counsel for the re-
pective Tarties in the guardianship :
ase, on the ground that the records i
ERE the best evidence, Mr.. Humphreys +
that the records in that case 4
al Humphreys, Thompson & Watson ,
:, attorneys for Sumner and he dis :
u ute them. Witness then answered :,
iat thompson represented the Ellises. =
n vas summer attorney. L
VT humphreys made a statement TO
nlow night on evidence that when y
uIiher came from Tahiti he was TAX :,
=. ~ N nphreys' Office. Highton was
y, eueSI ana that OF his partnerI
In the law Offices he occu
! eIofe going on the bench ava IN s
eaiity what was meant nv ~ anu Il" p
ehGe was that Sumner was taIe. a
&c dlsnton in that location. ~ a
COMPROMISING LETTER
The cross-exaninatio, :. A
anoeau began shortly before the 80 /