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

recess and continued for the greater
part of the afternoon session. The
letter of acknowledgment to Highton
was again produced and witness said
regarding it:
After that letter was signed there
was nothing more said about the mat
Ter until the last suit was brought;
then 1 went TO Judge Humphreys Il nd
he asked me If I had written such a
letter: told me if he had known l had
signed such a letter he never would
have taken the case: it was then 1
saw I ought not to have signed the let
ter: cannot remember If it was since
these charges were made against Hum
phreys. Thompson & Watson; Thomp-
son used almost the same words to me
as Humphreys; il was the same day
Respondents objected to the question
if Humphreys and Thompson after
these statements retired from the case,
as the records were the best evidence
as to that. Mr.. Andrews said the OBJ
ject was to fix the time, but on the
admission of respondents that they did
not retire withdrew the question.
MATTER OF FEES.
Witness said that after Summers ar
rival it was arranged at Highton's Of
attorney as we'll as theirs (the Ellises)
his fee for all parties was to be $500;
it is not fact that 1 advanced s125 to
my uncle to make up the fee; Mr..
Highton handed me a receipt for 1925.
which 1 passed over to uncle (Sumner)
Humphreys Thompson & Watson
were attorneys for me and my broth
ers; they were not our attorneys in the
railway suit; at the meeting in the
Boston building Humphreys came In
with my brother William; that very
night the guardianship suit was
dropped; at the meeting Humphreys
came out with US and told us not to
| let that trust deed of Cathcart so
| through, and not to give in to the OLD
mans plan of settlement, that more
could be got out of the land option.
Asked what the trust deed had to
| do with the railway suit, witness said
Highton advised them that the Catho-
lie church and themselves were the on
lv beneficiaries under the trust deed to
| the Bishop.
Mr.. Andrews-what did Humphreys
advise you to hold out against-the
trust deed to Cathcart, or the deed to
the railway. or both together.
Witness-It was the settlement. No
| retainer was paid to Humphreys, nor
to Humphreys, Thompson & Watson;
when Sumner offered to give us s10,-
900 Willie objected. he wanted more.
THE BLACKMAILING TALK.
Mr.. Andrews, showing witness the
letter of herself and brothers acknow-
lodging receipt of the letter from High
ton, asked if there was anything in
their letter showing protection to High
ton from the blackmailing scheme of
Mrs. Davis. To the objections of re-
snunCerts he argued that witness had
testified that Highton desired this let
ter for his protection. While the court
was consulting, the question was with
drawn.
Witness confirmed her previous testi-
mony that Highton said he would not
darllen the door of George A. Davis, as
he was a blackmailer; they agreed to
the deed of sale to the railway rather
than have their uncle declared insane.
Under objections by Mr.. Thompson,
the court disallowed a question as to
payment to witness of her $4,000, as
not based on the direct testimony.
Mr.. Andrews moved to have witness
produce in court the leases from which
she derived an income of $500 or 500
year, as he understood her to testify.
Respondents objected that the evil
dence was confederation of their wit
ness and not impeachment. The Attor-
ney General said it was to impeach.
MAJORITY RULING.
Chief Justice Frear, after consulting
with Justices Galbraith and Perry for
some time, stated that a majority of
the court ruled the witness should pro-
duce the leases.
Pa6iraRf n Mr. Hn0onhrnNrC witness
gave figures of rentals of land and
lodgings which aggregated her an in
come of something over $500, also stat
ed her husbands regular salary. This
evidence related to her testimony as to
engaging Mr. Highton under promise
of a fee Of s25OO
Cross by Mr.. Andrews
Humphreys first appeared for them in
the case Of ROpert VS.. Sumner.
HUMPHREYS FIRST CALLED.
William Sumner Ellis testified that
first appeared for him when
the meeting took place in the Boston
building; there was a proposition that
Sumner give a trust deed to r. w.
Cathcart and witness objected to it;
went out to Y. w. c. A. telephone and
asked Humphreys to meet him at the
entrance of the Boston building; told
that he and his brother and
sister were beneficiaries under Sum
ners trust deed to the Bishop and his
will; Highton had advised him the
trust deed was irrevocable; never heard |
Sumner say Humphreys was his attor-
ney; heard him say he had no use for |
Regarding the letter written for the |
Ellises to send to the Bishop, witness |
said Highton told them it was for pro- |
lection against the Matchmaking
scheme (the insanity petition of Mrs.
Davis), and advised them il was all
right.
WHO'S WHO AGAIN.
Never heard Sumner say Thompson
vas his attorney, nor that Humphreys,
Thompson & Watson Were his attcr-
leys; petition to declare Summer in
SINE was heard first day before Judge
Robinson; after telephoning 20 your Of
ice for you (Thompson) several ,im"s
heard you were downstairs in the
United States court: first time I had
n=Tll f0f iCy, ~, 1, To