The Hawaiian gazette., 1903-07-10
DRAMATIC
ByPLAYS
Argument Waived
by Humphreys
In Modesty.
tFrom Wednesdays Daily)

Another Of those little dramatic by
plays that have occasionally livened UP
the disbarment trial occurred just after
the defense rested close to the noon
hour yesterday. Frank e. Thompson
evidence in his own behalf was con-
cluded with a brief cross-examination
by Attorney-G General Andrews.
A. S. Humphreys rose to say that he
would be willing to have the case sub
mitted on the evidence. Argument
would involve an analysis of his mo-
tives and character which he was
modest enough not to be DESTROYS OF
making and he was not represented by
counsel. Accordingly he would waive
argument.
Mr.. Thompson stepped forward 10
say that he would not be bound by
anything Judge Humphreys said now
any more than during the taking of
evidence. He did not possess such 4
modesty as Judge Humphreys. This
was a serious matter for himself and
his family.
II will argue the case for my family"
Mr.. Thompson concluded.
AN IMPULSIvE PARTNER.
In the course of his evidence Thomp-
son said Humphreys was very i'm
pulsive man. By way Of illustration he
referred to the request Humphreys
made to keep his name out Of the Ellis
pleadings, on account of the family re-
lations between Magoon and himself.
Two or three days later Humphreys
suddenly appeared in court and asked
to be entered as counsel of record in
the case.
Attorney General Andrews did not
cross examine Thompson at great
length. After the waving Of argument
incident, he stated that he desired to
put on some rebuttal, and the court
took recess.
MORE DRAMATICS.
There was another tincture of drama
thrown into the proceedings early in
the rebuttal.
Acknowledgement Andrews on the
witness stand contradicted, under
strong fire Of objection, the version of
the Junior partner. Watson, Of an in
terview with the witness after Magoon
filed the charges against the firm. He
said he could not have informed Wat
son that his name was not mentioned,
because he had the letter under his
hand and knew it contained charges
against Humphreys, Thompson & Wat
son. Watson told him he knew abb
solutely nothing about the case and
asked him to leave his name out of the
charges, saying he was Il young prac-
titioner and it meant a great deal to
him.
Mr.. Watson, who Joined Humphreys
in saying he had no objection to this
evidence when Thompson objected at
first, now rose and claimed the privi-
lege of saying word on his own be-
half. He would waive all formalities
and ask that he be Joined as re-
spondent In the case with Humphreys
and Thompson. Mr. Humphreys join
ed in the request and Mr.. Thompson
said, "Emulating the example of the
Biblical character Job and his friends,
I would also ask that Mr.. Watson be
Joined as respondent"
Chief Justice Frear could hardly see
how Watson could be Joined at that
stage, but, Watson persisting and say
ing he was acting of his own motion,
the Chief Justice said the court would
bear the request in mind If anything
developed in the evidence to require it.
MACON CoNTRADICTs.
]. Alfred Magoon was called but be-
fore he gave any evidence a motion by
Thompson to strike out the Attorney
Generals testimony relative to Watson
was denied. Magoon contradicted the
evidence of Humphreys about certain
affidavit. He never knew anything
about the subject until the trial of this
case. Against Thompson's objection
that 1t was not rebuttal evidence but
retrial Of the case, witness denied the
conversation about the Sumner case
during the midnight ride to the fire in
town. Under the circumstances, each
of them being anxious lest his own
property was Misunderstanding to the
scene behind Magoon's fastest horse
he thought 1t very improbable that
they discussed law suits by the way.
Thompson cross-examined him minute
ly on the facts relative to the fire, the
place from where 1t could be seen to be
neither the steam laundry nor the law
office, etc.
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 |
to her husband, and that witness told |
them 1t was "all right and advised |
them to sign the acknowledgment. ETC..
answered that he regarded Mrs. Buff |
fandeau as 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 II
Mrs B. had referred 1t 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
a 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 IL the letter.