Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1903-08-11

There was nothing in Mr.. Magoon's
attitude or testimony to indicate that
be was falsifying. And, as Tor feelings
Ci luminosity or ill.will, none were
manifested on the part OF Mr.. Magoon.
while scarcely more could be shown on
the part of Mr.. Humphreys
MIR, Humphreys, on the evidence. Is
Iuilty OF having attempted to induce
Mr. Magoon 10 betray his client. There
Is but one ion-disbarmcnt.
Judgment Of Court.
The Judgment OF the Court is that
Thompson be suspended Tor the period
81 one year from this date, and that
| Humphreys be disbarred.
Galbrsith Dissents.
/ Dissenting, Galbraith says: 81 am
compelled to dissent from many OF the
! findings made and the Judgment pro
| nounCed in the foregoing opinion, al.
though do concur in the finding that
! the respondents were guilty of profes.
sonal misconduct and improperly in
appearing against Sumner in the Ro.
| pert suit after having appeared of rec
! ord for him in the guardianship pro
! Ccedings. However, | am not Copvinc-
ed that the respondents can be prop.
crly charged with turpitude for so do.
ing. It Is not found that there was any
ContraCtual relations existing between
Sumner and the rcspUn'. ITS or that
the relation OF attorney AM client eN.
listed between them TO its 'Iull extent
ard the evidence wholly fails TO show
that by reason of their connection
with the guardianship case they OBJ
tanned any secrets or special iniorma'
tion that was used against Sumner in
the Ropert case. There was no be
uayal of confidence, for Sumner re-
posed no confidence In either of them
nor does 1t appear that they gained
any advantage in the latter suit by rea'
son of their connection with the for
mel.
AS to the allegation in Sumner
answer in the guardianship case that
the property was Sumner and he
could do what he pleased with 1t and
the repetition of that statement In
, flighton's letter, ! do not attach any
I particular Importance to either. Meth
, er was a correct statement either oi
fact or law.
, Right View to Assume.
, Looking at the facts from the re
; spOndents' view point, and that is the
view point the court should assume IL
passing on the propriety OF their con
, duct in the presence of the court, II /,
! hot surprising that the respondents
should have shown some feeling to
| wards Highton and Magoon. Since
. llom such view point the former hGC
, been gul,y Of gross dupliCity towards
them and the latter during the hear
, Ing was firing on them from ambush
, Why should not the respondents 'shcl
D Tie wood Tor MagUOn?
From Ambush.
1t was Masoou who filed the chOrg
es with the Attorney General and whit
. the hearing. not in the open bu
rom the side line, was furnishing tn,
s greater part OF the evidence intrOduC
}. ed in support Of the charges, after h,
had procured from the Attorney Gen
/. "lal a certificate of the rectitude u
5 MS eoHuue' III Tue ouhihcr ii''sat'on
g do not condemn them, under sucl
/ uGims circumstances LOT the aciihluh'
J. eN"lpiteu, MT 10 oe'IeNe 'hat me
upuscu 'he privilege Oh free Speecl
tha' siSu'u DC "''o"eu attorneys "he'
''lenu'hs pe'ore 'he court charses y
seriously seriously a a., l'I' their personal an
: p.o'eSS,on"' 'cpu,"''ohs'
4 Enaraeter OF evidence
I N"l'e lhe ihu'Hiuuai cnarse asaihS
9 lLe respondent humphreys, ana
T. "H'cn .he court mus MN suii'y' nam
i y, !" ATTEMPTING 10 persu"ue o. a
/ I.eG N"sooii " p'''"y MS c'iei'' 'oh
r. N sumner - very grave one ! III
/ s'e"t uiiiou''! III considering II 81