The Hawaiian gazette., 1903-08-14
DAVIS sELF-CoNvICTED.

off in yesterdays issue of the Adver-
tiesr:
DAVIS SELF-CoNvICTED.
On an exhaustive review of the evil
dence on that point, taking his own in
especial, the court finds that Davis in
stituted false suits for the purpoes of
eNtorting money from Sumner. 1t is
found that he brought the two suits,
not for the purpose of proving the
allegations. but for 1.-The Interior pur-
pose of extorting money from Sumner"
that, after wearying Sumner by litiga-
ton into II condition of mind where he
was willing to buy peace. he brought
about a settlement on the basis of Sum-
ner's paying his sister $4,000. Third.
that, knowing the railway company's
anxiety to buy the land, he gave 1t ito
understand. in mild and polite words
though it may have been. that in or
der to secure n conveyance to the land
which the owner himself was willing
to give for s105,000 the company would
| have to pay $1,000 more to cover the
amount of the respondents fee and
practically blackmailed the company
into paying that amount"
| II. w. bAN 10 ABLE.
The court considers 1t unnecessary.
perhaps. owing to the position in
| which the respoirir.lt has placed M
self to set forth any of its reasons
for accepting as true the tcsthcray &C
r.. w. Davis as whole. Yet 1t re-
fers to tn, subject. His appearance,
attitude and manner of testifying con-
duced to an impression that he was
| truthful He testified without reserve
to facts in resool le1ts favor. No
motive for his perjuring himself APP
peared or had been suggested. Meth
! er he nor his mother nor Sumner had
in any manner insfgated or even sug-
gested these proceedings which We're
brought solely in compliance with the
direction of this court TO the Attorney
| General. Corroborating evidence ia
vored the witness rather than the re-
spondent Parenthetlcally, the court
says the Attorney General does not
deserve any Of the abuse 50 freely
heaped upon MIN by the respondent at
the hearing and in his cloSils addicss.
| Mr.Andrews did not move against the
respondent un.h he was directed by
the court to act"
| Respondent was contradcted by s.
NJ. Damon as we'll as r. w. Davis in
his statement that Mr.. Damon refused
| to pay the mon"y at Bishops bank
because the check did not have ]. A.
| Magoon's o. X.
FURTHER DISCREDITED.
AS between the respondent ana r
w. Davis, as to the payment to Mrs
Maria S. Davis, the court strongly in
clines to discredit the respondents
claim that Mrs. Davis and her son
authorized him to institute and con
duct negotiations which resulted In
the payment to her of $4,000. The opin.
ion says: Mrs. Davis is n years OLD
and at best her remaining years are
not many. She has on several occa'
sions brought similar proceedings fol
the protection of her brother and new
err for profit. Until tha case under
consideration she never received OF
asked for any money for purposes OF
settlement. 1t is not at all likely thai
now so late in life her character has
changed for the worse"
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMST ANCE
1t is deemed by the court an aggra
waiting circumstance that the amour
of the fee demanded AM obtained wa!
grossly excessive evan assuming, wha
IS not the fact. tina. the responder
brought and conducted the two sur
in good faith and for legitimate pur
poses. The Injunction suit was de
cided on afiidavits. The hearing upoI
the motion occupied but one day, th'
J decision being rendered two days late
and the decree filed on the next day
In the guardianship case there was
simple petition alleging unsoundnes
of mind and an answer by Sumner
denying the truth of that allegation
Upon that issue a trial was com
menced before Judge Robinson OF
September 20, which was transferred
to Judge De Bolt at noon next dag
before whom 1t took four days, coun
sci appearing on six other days whei
continuances were ordered, and OF
October IA the consent decree wa
filed.
SOUGHT EMPLOYMENT.
I'VE find upon the evidence" thu
court says, that the respondent die
seek to be employed as an attorre!
for Sumner in the case of Ropert VS.
Sumner. Respondent denies this, bu
we believe the evidence of j. A. Ma
COON and r. w. Davis on this poin
to be true. He had worked to thi
end through both Magoon and II. W
Davis To the latter, after other #
forts failed he said the bank had N
right to hold the money, that the cas-
was not being properly conducted, tina
he could get the money out in "a hour
and If Vt was not out in that time n
would sue the bank. II. w. Davis re
ported the conversation to Sumne
with the result that the latter invited
respondent to come out to his hous
to see him about the matter.
NOTE OF HAND.
The respondent went, attended by
notary, and at that interview procu'
ed the execution of an already pre-
. pared note reading, without the dat
and signature, thus: