The Hawaiian gazette., 1903-06-30
O|SBARMENT
CASE TRIAL
.asoon Is Cross.
Examined by
Defense.

terday morning to try the charge
against Messrs. Humphreys and
Thompson, the answer OF Franz
Thompson was filed. 1t was in terms
almost Identical with that Of A. 8
Humphreys, denying specifically the
various char ca of misconduct. &.
John X. Sumner and nearly all the
parties to the various cases bearing
his name. upon which this matter re-
wolves, were IN court.
Attorney General Andrews, who was
accompanied by Assistant Attorney
General Weaver, asked for a continu-
ance until the afternoon. as the an
swer of Mr.. Humphreys had only been
filed Saturday afternoon ana that of
Mr.. Thompson that morning. He
wished time to compare their state
ments with the alleged Facts In the
information, for If what .he respond
ents answered was true he might with :
draw the information. The continu-
ance was granted.
In the afternoon the pleadings were
read and the Attorney General then
began putting on his case against the
two attorneys.
| Attorney J. A. Magoon was placed
on the stand as the first witness. Ex-
| amined by Andrews, some of the chief
points of his evidence were as follows:
Asked Humphreys while the latter
was first Circuit Judge to take Sum-
ner's case after retiring; told him I
didn't see anything wrong in his taxi
ing the case after retiring from the
bench: after Humphreys came off the
bench he told witness he had been call
ed into the case.
Next connection witness had with
Sumner was when Geo. A. Davis asked
him to assist him before Judge De Bolt;
didn't know any reason why he (wit-
ness) should not be called into the case;
didn't know what case it was then;
next morning found on looking at the
records it was the suit of Mrs. Davis
to put Sumner under guardianship for
insanity; case was transferred from
Highton took leading part; Thomp-
son took a very active part against
Geo. Davis and myself; took 1t all the
way through that Thompson was rep
resenting Sumner.
Mr.. Thompson objected to the ques-
ton as to who represented the Ellises in
that suit, as the records were the best
evidence, and it was not pressed.
Witness described the interview about
a compromise in his Kaalawai house
with Humphreys, testifying the latter
said:
What do you care for Sumner? Let
him go. They will spend the money
anyway"
Finally Humphreys said:
"If this settlement Is made I can get
$4,000 out of 1t for the Ellises and you
can get $4,000 out of Sumner"
Witness still declined to entertain
the proposal and then Humphreys said:
well, you think the matter over"
Humphreys asked him II he had seen
the trust deed and when he answered
he had not Humphreys promised to
furnished him copy of It: he said he
would bring a suit on behalf of the Ell
Uses, unless the matter were compro-
missed. to get the money from Bishops
bank. land I will say" witness quot
ed Humphreys. that Sumner will new
err get dollar of It," Humphreys said
he would take 1t to the Supreme Court
here and find a way of taking 1t to the
Federal Supreme Court. and keep It
in litigation as long as Sumner lived
He told witness he must not say any
thing about the fees-"we must keep
Guided.
Again Humphreys said to witness.
when the latter went to see him about
stopping the litigation:
IF you have come for a settlement
I want you to understand that want
100000 or nothing: I would not take
s29, $685." Witness replied IL that was
the way he looked at It, there was no
use of witness wasting any more of
his time. "
1T absolutely deny" witness said.
that ever made any offer OF any kind
regarding a settlement OF these mat
tors" Il
Geo. A. Davis. Wally Davis and
Thompson came with an offer that
Sumner would pay $4,000 to have the
suit dismissed; Thompson wanted