The Hawaiian gazette., 1903-07-28

then thought that the plaintiff, Bishop
Ropert as trustee, and John X. Sumner.
the life tenant, were the only proper
parties to the bill. Sumner was urging
a speedy trial of the suit and respond
ent did not have the opportunity to
make as exhaustive a study of the law
on the several grounds of demurrer as
he would have liked the time being
mostly spent on the question of revoca-
bility of the trust upon which the case
was ultimately decided in favor of
Sumner.
REGARDS CHARGES PUERILE.
Mr. Magoon submits, without inten-
ton of being disrespectful to the At
torney- General, that the allegations in
paragraph seven of the information
"are trivial and puerile in the extreme"
In this connection he denies he told
Stewart that Wyllie Davis had no in
terest in the property. He goes on at
great length to intimate that this view
about Wyllie Davis came from Stewart
to him. Then he argues that 1t made
no difference. anyway, whether Wyllie
Davis was a party or not. Davis would
have been bound by the decision of the
court, even II he had not consented to
the cancellation of the deed.
= He could not understand how the At
torney General could have charged him
with fraud upon the Circuit Court in
the Davis trust deed matter, in view
of the correspondence between the At
torney- General and himself relative to
the investigation of the conduct of at
torneys which he quotes, and of the re-
port of the Attorney General to the Su-
preme Court in which he said:
81 find absolutely nothing in the ac-
lions of ]. A. Magoon, Esquire, upon
which charges could be based before
your Honorable Court"
THE ADVERTISER BLAMED.
Respondent in this connection says:
THAT the attitude of the said Lorrin
Andrews at this time is entirely incon-
sistent with the statement in his re-
port, and this deponent believes that
this shifting of the attitude of the At
torney- General is due to too sensitive
regard for what might be taken as pub
of the Pacific Commercial Advertiser,
which paper has relentlessly, malicious
ly and continuously traduced and
maligned respondent"
He believes that the statement re-
garding the Wyllie Davis trust deed in
the affidavit was intended to influence
the Court improperly, as no mention
had hitherto been made of the trust
Ill, CT IN, hy-in n
A. S. Humphreys, upon which respond
ent comments:
TT will be seen from the above that
the only purpose for which even the
critical eye of opposing counsel could
use the matter of the trust deed to r.
w. Davis, was an abortive attempt to
throw discredit on the motives of re-
spondent r. w. Davis and John l..
Sumner"
COLOSSAL SERVICES.
Thousands of words are used by re-
spondent to recount the services for
which he received. the fee of $4,000 from
Sumner. He says that when Sumner
lost confidence in himself and Geo. A.
Davis and suggested the calling in of
Kinney, Ballou & McClanahan, the re-
spondent cheerfully consented but w.
A. Kinney declined the offer. in letter
quoted, unless he could have the con-
troll and direction of the case. Re-
spondent was willing to agree, as he
believed Humphreys and Thompson de-
sired to make the suit one for the trial
of personal differences between attor-
neys, but Geo. A. Davis would not
consent and the firm named therefore
did not come in.
CLAIMS FEE REASONABLE.
Mr.. Magoon says his fee depended al
most, if not wholly. upon the success
full issue of the suit. If Sumner had
failed, respondent believes that not only
would he have recovered no remunera-
ton for all the services rendered and
time spent, but would not have received
back the costs paid in the suit and
the amounts he actually advanced for
the support of ]. X. Sumner for long
time, if ever.
He says the property of j. X. Sumner
involved in the trust was s4s,025 in cash
and real estate of the value of from
$4,000 to $4,000. maki-,g in all an es-
tate in the neighborhood of $4,000.
Said suit being entirely successful, the
said estate Is now subject to the alb
solute control of Sumner. and respond
ent claims he might have charged $4,000
for the services performed by himself
and associates In that suit entirely
separate and apart from any fee Sum
ner might be pleased to pay Geo. A.
Davis.
DEFENDS MRS. DAVIS.
Mr.. Magoon proceeds at great length
to recount good offices done by him for
Sumner, mentioning his defense OF the
All In case and defeat of the injunction
on the $4S.025 withdrawal. He defends
Mrs. Maria Davis from the charge OF
blackmail, and says the fee she paid
Geo. A. Davis was he- own money,
and Davis paid him half in accordance
with agreement. Neither she nor her
son, r, w. Davis, nor John X. Sumner.
though he has met them many times
since. has ever suggested any dissatis-
faction in that matter.
THANKFUL FOR OPPORTUNITY
In conclusion Mr.. Magoon thus ex-
presses himself:
THAT so far from harboring any NAL
ice or ill-will against the Attorney Gen
eral for bringing this information,
however unjust the charges appear to
be. respondent is heartily thankful 10
~