Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1903-08-11
That was not a frivolous suit by any

The majority opinion (Frear and
Perry fnds the conduct of respondents
improper, "if at ALL" in that case, be-
cause of their relations to Sumner in
prior litigation.
Guilty of Recklessness.
Respondents were guilty of reCk-
lessness in assisting and participating
! in the distribution of the trust fund
without SO much as looking at the trust
deed or the will to ascertain whether
their terms permitted such distrihuN
ton. They acted first for sumner
and then against him in respect of the
same matter, even If their actions ia
either capacity alone would be above
criticism"
Relations with Sumner.
Here the majority opinion goes at
length into the relations Of Humphreys
and Thompson with Sumner the facts
having been brought out during the
trial Of the cases,
confidence in Humphreys.
The Ellises had been friendly with
him CHumphreys) for several years
and w. S. Ellis had been the bauin Of
his court for n long time They had
complete confidence in him and wanted
him, and it was only natural that they
should expect their uncle (sumnerl 10
aCquiesCe in their wishes and engage
Humphreys.
cit is certainly not at all improbable
that, as Mr.. Highton puts it, Sumner.
though unwilling to have personal re-
lations with Humphreys, on account Of
certain past difficulties between them,
was willing IN view OF the desire Of the
Ellses, to have him retained 10 assist
in the case, and that he was retained
for all but more particularly for the
Ellises and perhaps more particularly
still for w. -. Ellis.
( Hiehton Leading Counsel.
While Iighton acted as leading
counsel throughout until the settle
, ment, and both Sumner and the Ellises
I were satisfied with him, yet on import
ant occasions, as at each Of the two
: proposed settlements, they each wished
| TO have present some one in whom
they had special confidence. The Ell
Uses wanted Humphreys or Thompson
: and Sumner wanted his friend Cath.
= lCart."
n Not Guilty in This
Respondents rely also on the fact
n that the DaSses were required TO sign
n release and the Ellises were not.
This release now appears TO have been
r. suggested by Humphreys and not by
the Elises. The respondents neglect
TO get releases from the Ellises as well
as from the DavisCs for their client
: Sumner, is made one Of the grounds
u of complaint. But while doubtless that
would have been wise course to pur-
u sue, we do not find the respondents
guilty as to that. No such releases
= were contemplated. The distribution
u was made on the theory that the money
l. was Summers and that no releases
were needed"
The majority opinion states that
" Humphreys and Thompson endeavored
Ito show that these witnesses (Highton
and MagoonD falsified in certain par.
L. ticulars. The calumnies hurled against
: Highton are entirely without founda.
!. ton.
u Unfortunately for the respondent,
II there is in this case vast amount Of
u evidence against them in addition ,C
y Hightons testimony"
II Considerable space is devoted in tn,
'e majority (Frear and Perry opinion L
j showing that Hightons testimony wal
" true.
81 Humphreys to Highton.
Humphreys told Highton that hi
conduct IN connection with the letter.
VAS the greatest outrage in his pro
If lcssional experience. Highton SAT-
% humphreys did not call him a liar
i scoundrcl or fraud in his hearing. IN,
ar least SAID the better for the respond
ss ents, Fortunately for them, we ar
Id rot disposed to judge them bv tn,
is standards by which they wu4u, hav
5. us judge others.
a Curious Circumstance"
n 1t is curious circumstance Via
practically every argument or chags
+ aimed by the respondents against q
in posing witnesses or counsel apple
with double force against themselves
Id What should the penalty ne?
s. II lut lcldllOn Ol attorney anu CT
4 cHt existed between the respondent
nj land Sumner to its fullest extent, tn
r. ycnalty by all the authorities, shoul
II ue disbarment. Where there are nit
eating circumstances. it may well b
only suspension"
Here, cases are quoted
,a Thompson Suspended.
" In the case of Thompson, maxim
Io due allowances for the looseness q
Ho the relationship of attorney and ellen
between him and Sumner, and giyin
~ him all the benefit of doubt that real
~ oHably can be given as to the eXter
e' Z! his knowledge as to the understan,
III ing of the parties, especially Sumne
re az the settlement, and taking into col
~ sideration his comparative youthful
es ness, though he disclams any desir
Tor allowances on this account, I'll