The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1903-09-11
6. A. DAVIS
PRACT|C|NG
Ills Disbarment Stayed
Pending Motion for
a Rehearing.

! When the Circuit Court opened yes
Iterday morning with the three judges
sitting together, George A. Davis ap-
peared with papers and books to argue
his petition for license to practice.
Judge Gear, as presiding at the term,
checked the intending pleader at the
outset and stated that it would be I'M
necessary to hear Mr.. Davis owing to a
conference on his case held by the
three Judges with Chief Justice Frear.
The First Judge was requested to state
the ruling of the court
Judge De Bolt announced that all OF
the Circuit Judges of this Circuit heid
that the petition for a rehearing Oh
Davis's case in the Supreme Court OPP
Grated as a stay of the Judgment OF
-disbarment.
In the subsequent calling of the cal
endar Mr. Davis utilized his privilege
by answering to cases in which he was
attorney Of record.
On inquiry it is learned that the time
of grace thus allowed the dsbarred at
torney to continue practice Is given
under a rule of the Supreme Court,
to the effect that where motion Tor
rehearing of a matter is filed within
thirty days it operates to stay juds-
ment until such motion Is heard. Inc
Supreme Court may convene at any
time to hear and determine the motion.
Mr.. Davis filed two new afiidavits
in the Supreme Court yesterday, In sup
port of his motion for rehearing of
the matter of his disbarment. one
of the documents began with re-
markable statement, thus:
"I George a. Davis of Honolulu
Counsellor at Law make oath and say
81 That I was born in the City of
Boston in the State of Massachusetts
on the 3rd day of June A d 1903
punctuation marks are omitted
throughout the motion, in the EnShsh
law style)
After an evening paper came out
with the foregoing deposition of Mr..
Davis that he was only a little more
than three months of age, he hurried
before Chief Clerk Henry Smith and
had his affidavit amended to make 1898
the year of his birth.
sive steps of his training for the prac-
tice of law, thence proceeding to make
statements in proof of the claim that
he did not have a fair trial. 1t was
unfair, Mr. Davis sets forth, that he
should have been tried in the absence
of the manager of the o. r. 4 l.. Co.,
with whom he made the bargain where
by John X. Sumner got $4,000 more
than the price he wanted for the land.
1t was serious error he claims for the
court to have rejected evidence as to
what became of the $46,025 in the First
National bank when he last saw sum-
ner before the trial.
Mr.. Davis complains that, while he
did as much skilled work as associate
counsel, the latter received six thous-
and five hundred dollars out of these
cases while this deponent only received
forty-five hundred dollars"
Another ground of complaint is that
Maria S. Davis, who, as ne says, made
no complaint against Mr.. Davis, dis
obeyed the subpoena of the court re-
quiring her to appear and give evil
dence on his behalf, land allege and
say upon my oath" Mr. Davis con-
cludes, that her evidence was neces-
sary and material to proper hearing
ana IN OrueT lndt llllS utpolltHl
have fair and impartial trial which
is the guarantee of every citizen of the
United States of America and which 1
did not get"
The other affidavit presents that Mr..
Davis, on account of presiding in the
Honolulu District Court, did not have
an opportunity properly to prepare his
defense. 1t declares that Associate
Justice Perry was biased and preiu-
diced against him, their mutual rela-
lions having been strained ever since
the said Justice as Circuit Judge for
merly fined him $50 on two occasions
for contempt, also ordered him impris-
oned for ten DAYS for alleged con-
tempt. He further goes into the ques-
tion of jurisdiction raised in his petit
ton, refers to the dissent of Associate
Justice Galbraith as to his guilt and
declares that the punishment imposed
on him was "cruel and unusual" In
conclusion he asserts his innocence of
the charges in the information saying
the $4,000 fee he accepted was not ex-
cessive and was paid to him by check
freely and voluntarily by his client in
presence of the Judge who tried the
cause. In this respect he quotes the
report of the Attorney General in July
as negativing the charge of fraud, de-
ceit and infidelity.