The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1903-07-08
THAT LETTER AGAIN.


THAT LETTER AGAIN.
Henry E. Highton, being asked if
what Mrs. Buffandeau had testified
was true-that she referred the letter
witness wrote for the Bishop and the
letter of the Ellises acknowledging it
to her husband, and that witness told
them it was "an right" and advised
them to sign the acknowledgment, ETC.,
answered that he regarded Mrs. Buff
fandeau as a highly educated woman.
Mr.. Thompson objected to conclu-
sions or argument from witness al
though he was an attorney, and the
court ordered the answer stricken out.
Witness did not remember that Mrs
Buffandeau referred the letter to her
husband; was determined that they
should understand the letter, and if
Mrs. B. had referred it to her husband
witness should have objected.
Mr.. Thompson moved to strike out
the determination of witness and An
drews argued contra that witness had
right to show why the letter was not
referred to Buffandeau. Motion denied
by majority of court.
Could not remember a conversation
in which w. S. Ellis asked if the letter
was all right, and witness telling him
it was only to prevent the settlement
with Maria S. Davis. AS a matter of
fact, w. S. Ellis interpreted the letter
into Hawaiian for the others.
Mr.. Thompson objected to a question
because he said the Attorney General
gave a garbled version of it. He ap
pealed to the record and there was a
protracted search for the passage want
ed in the stenographers notes. Wit
ness did not remember exactly, but
had an impression that he handed the
Ellis answer to Thompson in witnesses
own office. and not in that of Hum
phreys, Thompson & Watson. Very
likely he did hesitate to sign that
firms name.
WHAT HE DID KNOW.
Witness could not say if it was I'M
derstood at the settlement that the re-
mainder was to be over for the benefit
of the Ellises, but did know it was I'M
the $4,000 less the several payments
should be held by the Bishop as trustee
for John K. Sumner.
1t was not true what Humphreys
Ellis letter from witness. On the 18th
of December Humphreys asked him
for a copy of the letter, which was
written on the 22nd of October, and
witness furnished him with copy the
next day, December 10, 1902. He knew
the dates exactly because he kept a
record.
Mr.. Humphreys here stated that Mr.
Andrews misquoted his testimony, as
there was nothing inconsistent in it
with the statement now made by wit
ness.
HUMPHREYS PLEASANT.
Witness met Humphreys in Bethel
street and in conversation told him he
wrote the Ellis letter for his own pro-
lection. After the 18th of December he
met him occasionally and Humphreys
was always pleasant.
Mr.. Highton here began to tell about
a matter put in his hands by Wilson
and Denman, clients, and was relating
that he had seen S NJ Damon, Cecil
gar Co. bonds, when Justice GaIbraith
asked the Attorney General what was
the use of all that. Mr. Andrews as
sured the court that it was connected
with the evidence of Humphreys about
the interview with Highton in his Of |
flee. Witness claimed for himself he |
had the right to show how he went to !
H., T. & WIS office.
Mr.. Humphreys (echoing a remark !
by Mr.. Thompson)-"And how you !
were kicked OUT
THE STATEMENT UNTRUE.
Mr.. Highton-"No, 1 was not; that
part is not true"
Witness went on to say that he was
elephoned for CThompsoH interrupted
to say witness might as
we'll say if the telephone was working
hat day.; found Humphreys sitting
here alone in his own office. Hum
)hreys said to him, you went to Mr..
Damon first?" Yes witness answer
ID. Humphreys then said, you knew
hat we were attorneys for all the
Il did not" was the
eply.
HUMPHREYS SURLY
Humphreys then dropped the bust
less on which witness went and re-
erred to the Sumner business. He
harged witness with writing a letter
nd produced a letter, reading extracts
rom it; then called in Thompson;
became rude and unman-