The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1903-08-12
DAVIS sELF-CONvICTED.


DAVIS SELF-CONVICTED
On an exhaustive review of the evil
dence on that point, taking his own in
especial, the court finds that Davis in
stituted false suits for the purpoes OF
eNtorting money from Sumner. 1t is
found that he brought the two suits,
not for the purpose Of proving the
allegations. but for 1.-The Interior pur-
pose of extorting money from Sumner;
that, after wearying Sumner by litiga-
ton into a condition of mind where he
was willing to buy peace, he brought
about settlement on the basis of sum-
ner's paying his sister $4,000. Third,
that, knowing the railway 'company's
anxiety to buy the land, he gave IL TO
understand, in mild and polite words
though il may have been. that in or
der to secure conveyance to the land
which the owner himself was willing
to give for $1O5, 900 the company would
have to pay $1,000 more to cover the
amount of the respondents fee and
practically blackmailed the company
into paying that amount"
r. w. DAVIS BELIEVABLE.
The court considers it unnecessary,
perhaps, owing to the position in
which the raspon-r-lt mas placed F:m-
self to set forth any of its reasons
for accepting as true the trsti,"c"y e
r. w. Davis as whole. Yet ii re-
fers 10 thc subject. His appearance,
attitude and man-cr of testifying con-
duced TO an impression that he was
truthful. He testified without reserve
to facts in resSoala1t's favor. No
motive for his perjuring himself APP
peared or had been suggested. Meth
er he nor his mother nor Sumner had
in any manner instigated or even sug-
gested these proceedings which We're
brought solely in compliance with the
direction of this court TO the Attorney
General. Corroborating evidence ia
vored the witness rather than the re-
spondent. Parenthetically, the court
says the Attorney Generil does not
deserve any Of the abuse so freely
heaped upon hiIa ~ the respondent at
the hearing and in his closing adG;css.
Mr.Andrews did not move against the
respondent un,I he was directed 10y
the court to act"
Respondent was contradicted by {.
NJ. Damon as welt as r. w. Davis in
his statement that Mr.. Damon refused
to pay the monay at bishops bank
because the check did not have J. A.
Magoon's o. K.
FURTHER DISCREDITED.
As between the respondent AMI r.
w. Davis, as to the payment to Mrs.
Maria S. Davis, the court strongly in
clines to discredit ths respondents
claim that Mrs. Davis and her son
authorized him to institute and con-
duct negotiations which resulted in
the payment to her of 900. The opin-
ion says: Mrs. Davis is n years old
and at best her remaining years are
not many. She has on several occa-
sions brought similar proceedings for
the protection of her brother and new
er for profit. Until the case under
consideration she never received or
asked for any money for purposes of
settlement. 1t is not at all likely that
now so late in life her character has
changed for the worse
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
1t is deemed by the court an aggra-
waiting circumstance that the amount
of the fee demanded an6 obtained was
grossly excessive even assuming, what
IS not the fact, thai the respondent
brought and conducted the TWO suits;
in good faith and for legimate pur-
poses. The injunction suit was de-
cided on affidavits. The hearing upon
the motion occupied but one day, the
decision being rendered two days later
and the decree filed on the next day.
In the guardianship case there was =
simple petition alleging unsoundness
of mind and an answer by Sumner
denying the truth of that allegation.
Upon that issue a trial was COM
menced before Judge Robinson on
September 90, which was transferred
to Judge De Bolt at noon next day,
before whom it took four days. Coun-
sci appearing on six other days when
continuances were ordered. and on
October IA the consent decree was
filed.
SOUGHT EMPLOYMENT.
I'VE find upon the evidence" the
court says, that the respondent did
seek to be employed as an attorney
for Sumner in the case of Ropert VS..
Summer. Respondent denies this. but
we believe the evidence of ]. \. Ma
COON and r. w. Davis on this point
to be true. He had worked to this
end through both Magoon and r. W.
Davis. To the latter, after other IF
forts failed. he said the bank had no
right to hold the money, that the case
was not being properly conducted. that
he could get the money out in "a hours
and if 1t was not out in that time he
would sue the bank. r. W. Davis re-
ported the conversation to Sumner
with the result that the latter invited
respondent to come out to his house
TO see him about the matter.
NOTE OF HAND.
The respondent went, attended by
notary, and at that interview procu;-
ed the execution of an already pre-
pared note reading, without the date
and signature, thus:
ION demand for value received 1
promise TO pay Geo. a. Davis or order
the sum of three thousand dollars 1t
the Banking House of Bishop & Co.
Honolulu, without interest" and also
a power of attorney authorizing the
respondent to act as counsel for sum-
ner in all suits and actions in equity
and ct law now pending. and to take