The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1903-07-03
DEFENSIVE
EVIDENCE
History Of Sumner
Case in Varied
Versions.

Evidence for the defense in the dis
barment case was on all of yesterday 6
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 s250O
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
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 s2500.
AT BOSTON BUILDING.
Witness told about the Boston build
ing conference, the same story 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 it was enough to have
them all placed under guardianship
and that larger price ought to be Sc
cured for the land. She did not hear
Humphreys 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
Highton for Sumner.
BLACKMAILING CHARGED.
The letter from Highton to Sumner
and the Ellises already III evidence
was shown to witness, with the reply |
of the Ellises accepting its terms of
settlement. She signed the letter in
Hightons office while her brothers
We're present; when Humphreys asked
her If she had signed such letter she
denied she had, but when he showed
her signature he was surprised that
she had signed something without
knowing what it was; Highton had
advised her to sign 1t to protect him
from the Davis Matchmaking scheme.
Witness, talking about the o. r. &
l.. Co. purchase, said Highton declined
to carry the deed to the Office of Geo.
A. Davis, saying he would never
darken George A. Davis's door. as he
was blackmailer"
Mr.. Davis had entered the court
room few moments before this item
of evidence was given.
INTERESTs CLASSIFIED.
Mr.. Thompson having objected to
question by the Attorney General as to
those who were counsel for the re-
spective PARTIES in the guardianship
case, on the ground that the records
were the best evidence. Mr.. Humphreys
lnterposed that the records In that case
nd Humphreys. Thompson & Watson
rs attorneys for Sumner and he dis
juted them. Witness then answered
that Thompson represented the Ellises,
and Highton was Summers attorney.
Mr.. Humphreys made a statement to
throw light on evidence that when
Sumner came from Tahiti he was TAX
en- to Humphreys office. Highton was
his guest and that of his partner
Thompson in the law offices he occu-
pied efore going on the bench, and in
reality what was meant by the evil
dence was that Sumner was taken to {
see Highton In that location.
COMPROMISING LETTER.
The cross-examination of Mrs. Buff
fandeau began shortly before the noon
recess and continued for the greater
part of the afternoon session. The
letter of acknowledgment to Highton
was again produced and witness said
regarding 1t:
After that letter was signed there
was nothing more said about the mat
ter until the last suit was brought;
then I went to Judge Humphreys and
he asked me IL / had written such n |