The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1903-07-08

BYPLAYS
Argument Waived
by Humphreys
In Modesty.
Watson Requests to Be
Placed Under
Charges.
Hiehton Contradicts Evidence Of
Respondents With Recorded
Facts, Dates and Words.

Another of those little dramatic by
plays that have occasionally livened up
the disbarment trial occurred just after
the defense rested close to the noon
hour yesterday. Frank E. Thompson's
evidence in his own behalf was con-
cluded with a brief cross-examination
by Attorney General Andrews.
A. S. Humphreys rose to say that he
would be willing to have the case sub
mitted on the evidence. Argument
would involve an analysis of his mo-
tives and character which he was
modest enough not to be DESTROYS of
making and he was not represented by
counsel. Accordingly he would waive
argument.
Mr.. Thompson stepped forward 10
say that he would not be bound by
anything Judge Humphreys said now
any more than during the taking of
evidence. He did not possess such n
modesty as Judge Humphreys. This
was a serious matter for himself and
his family.
II will argue the case for my family"
Mr. Thompson concluded.
AN IMPULSIVE PARTNER.
In the course of his evidence Thomp-
son said Humphreys was a very i'm
pulsive man. BY way of illustration he
TO the request Humphreys
made to keep his name out of the Ellis
pleadings, on account of the family re-
lations between Magoon and himself.
Two or three days later Humphreys
suddenly appeared in court and asked
to be entered as counsel of record in
the case.
Attorney General Andrews did not
Thompson at great
length. After the waving of argument
incident, he stated that he desired to
put on some rebuttal. and the court
took recess.
MORE DRAMATICS.
There was another tincture of drama
into the proceedings early in
the rebuttal.
Attorney-General Andrews on the
stand contradicted, under
strong fire of objection, the version of
the junior partner. Watson, of an in
-erview with the witness after Magoon
fled the charges against the firm. He
said he could not have informed Wat
son that his name was not mentioned,
because he had the letter under his
land and knew it contained charges
against Humphreys, Thompson & Wat
ION. Watson told him he knew alb
olutely nothing about the case and
-sked him to leave his name out of the
harges, saying he was Il young prac-
itioner and it meant a great deal to
i'm.
Mr.. Watson. who joined Humphreys
n saying he had no objection to this |
violence when Thompson objected at |
rst, now rose and claimed the privi- |
ege of saying a word on his own be- |
alf. He would waive all fornaIities |
nd ask that he be joined as a re- !
pondent in the case with Humphreys |
nd Thompson. Mr.. Humphreys join |
d in the request and Mr.. Thompson |
aid, "Emulating the example of the |
iblical character Job and his friends, |
would also ask that Mr. Watson be
,ined as a respondent
Chief Justice Frear could hardly see
ow Watson could be joined at that
age. but. Watson persisting and say
lg he was acting of his own motion,
lie Chief Justice said the court would
ear the request in mind if anything
eveloped in the evidence to require it.
MACON CONTRADICTS.
]. Alfred Magoon was called but be
IRE he gave any evidence a motion by
thompson to strike out the Attorney
enerars testimony relative to Watson
as denied. Magoon contradicted the
violence of Humphreys about a certain
He never knew anything
bout the subject until the trial of this
lse. Against ThOupson's ohiactior,
nat it was not rebuttal evidence but a
etrial Of the case, witness denied the
onversation about the Sumner case
uring the midnight ride 10 the fire in