The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1903-06-27

S. Humphreys drew up the aforesaid
answer and your complainant further
charges that the said answer was filed
for the purpose of harassing John K.
Sumner and enforcing a settlement,
wherein said Humphreys and the Ell
Uses might receive additional sums of
money from said John K. Sumner in
compromise of their alleged claims
BOBS UP SERENELY.
That at the hearing of said cause
A S. Humphreys appeared for the
said Ellises and asked that his name
be entered as counsel therefor. He
conducted the case for said Ellises,
examined witnesses and made argu-
ment before the court, and in every
way opposed the interest and claims
of John K. Sumner in the said suit.
STAND AND DELIVER.
That during said trial Frank E.
Thompson, on behalf of A. S. Hum
phreys, as senior counsel for the Ell
Uses aforesaid, made further demands
upon John K. Summer and J. A. Ma
COON his attorney, whereby said
Thompson, in behalf of said Hum
phreys, offered to settle all of said Ell
Uses demands and claims in said suit
in consideration of said John K Sum-
ner turning over to the said Ellises a
certain sum of money, including ex-
tortionate counsel fees for the said
firm of Humphreys, Thompson & Wat
son. That all of these demands and
extortions were refused by said John
K. Sumner and his attorney ]. A. Ma,
COON.
EXTORTION THE AIM.
Complainant therefore charges that
II, ,osI
were not contesting this suit for and
in behalf of any legal rights to which
they believed the Ellises entitled, as
shown by their answer in the suit of
Ropert as trustee versus John K. Sum-
ner ct al, but merely and solely for
the purpose of extorting from said
John K. Sumner further sums of
money.
PLAYS NEW TUNE.
The complaint goes on to recite that
Humphreys took an appeal from Judge
De Bolts decision in favor of Sumner
and argued it before the Supreme
Court, land in his brief for the ap-
pellant further sought to harass said
John K. Summer, stating that the said
trust was irrevocable, well knowing
that in his answer for John K. Sumner,
in the suit of Maria S. Davis, he had
set up that the said John K. Sumner
might dispose of his property as he
saw fit"
On which the Attorney General COM
ments, and concludes the complaint,
in the following terms:
This, your petitioner alleges. was a
gross infidelity to his former client and
a gross professional improperly, and,
under the circumstances that preced-
ed, was intended to induce John K.
Sumner who had delivered large sums
of money in full settlement of the de-
mands of the Ellises, however, illegal,
to pay further sums of money in set
tlement of the same demands.
DISBARMENT INVOKED.
Wherefore, by reason of the forego-
ing. complainant charges said A. S.
Humphreys with professional impro-
prieties, malpractice, deceit, infidelity
to his client and gross misconduct,
and charges said Frank E. Thompson
with professional improprieties, NAL
practice, infidelity to his client and
gross misconduct. and asks that the
said a. S. Humphreys and Frank E.
Thompson may be cited to appear and
answer this information at the June.
1903 session of the October 1902 term Of
this honorable court. or as soon there
after as counsel may be heard, and
that if the charges herein may be sus-
tanned your honors will dismiss from
the roll Of practitioners, suspend from
practice or otherwise deal with the
said A s Humphreys and Frank z.
as. under the pleadings and
rrOOfS NAV be proper