Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1903-06-30
THE WITNESS BOX A RACK;
HUMPHREYS PROBES MACON

Magoon in the box; Humphreys cross
examining; the courtroom filled with
witnesses and interested attorneys. rel
atiyes and curious spectators. Three
smart raps of the bailiff's gavel stine
the audible applause that ripples and
rises from the watchful group of men
and women whose eyes cannot leave
the faces of accuser and accused,
The hearing Of the charges against
Attorneys Humphreys and Thompson.
flied by the Attorney General, is on be-
fore the Supreme Court. II is in the
afternoon. Andrews was not ready to
proceed in the morning. The Attorney
General has acclaimed the lengthy
charges, addressing Their Honors and
| the answers of defendants have been
rccited in open court.
| Andrews has called J. Alfred Ma
coon to the stand and that gentleman
! has testified to statements contained
H. the complaint. Now 1t is Humph.
rcys' turn.
| Time has passed quickly. It Is
o'clock and the Chief Justice glances
, at the clock suggesting a recess until
| the morning. Humphreys is on his
feet.
! MAY 1t please Your Honors." he re.
marks, iii there is no objection we
would like to proceed with the cross
examination at once; otherwise the
witness will have a lucid interval OF
eighteen hours and that would be hard.
~ fair"
proceed" ordered the Chief JUS
tic the merest suggestion OF a smile
passing over his countenance.
| Magoon, in answer to Humphreys
questions, stated that a conversation
between Humphreys and himself in re-
lation to a compromise took place when
Humphreys visited him at Kaalawal.
what was the subject OF our con.
yersation?"
81 think we talked about law cases"
Local cases?"
81 don't think they were local cases."
Didn't | speak of the Oahu railway
suit?"
II don't Just remember what wc
talked about. Yes: think you men.
toned the railway case"
you stated before that told you
that suit had been brought. Did | tell
you that"
81 don't remember whether you said
suit had been brought or was going to
be brought"
Then you wish to qualify your for
mer statement"
81 have said that qualified IT,"
you remember what you said about
my taking the case?"
Il said did not see why you should
not take the case after coming of tho
bench"
was your name not entered as asso-
ciate counsel in the insanity case?"
| II was sent for by Davis, but declin.
cd to take part In the case. Davis was
going to enter my name as associate.
but refused. sat with him in tho
courtroom merely to prompt him in re.
gard to papers and records in the case,
with which he did not seem to be 70.
miliar. | did not know the title OF the
case until | saw the records the next
day."
"You didn't know what case II was7"
mo; | didn't know until I saw tho
records the next day"
And yet you were able to assist an,
other attorney In the finding OF records
and to prompt him. not knowing what
case you were working on?"
There were several cases and I
didn't know until later what case it
was"
"As a member Of the bar, you knew
not what case you were engaged in?"
Not until I'd examined the records"
Here the Attorney General raised an
objection to the testimony.
Il will show that the evidence Is
competent" said Humphreys, "as
bringing out facts and statements to
impeach the witness-facts that would
stain the beak Of a vulture.'"
Humphreys smilingly withdrew fur
Their questions on this line.
Humphreys then went into the Ka'
alawai proposition. In regard to this
Magoon had testified that Humphreys
nav plOpOScu u compromise WHtTtUy
the Ellises were to receive $4,000.
Sumner S1SO25, and whereby Humph.
reys was to charge his clients 5000
and Magoon might charge Sumne
VI, 900.
did you consider this proposal up
fair?" asked Humphreys.
mot at the time" was the answer
"Or dlshonorable"
II thought nothing OF It. No; I did
not consider II dishonorable.
Magoon said that his counter propo
sition was made because Sumner in
sisted. He did not think It profession
ally wrong to keep the matter OF fees
secret. 1t would have to be known
anyway. Fees could not be charged
without the knowledge OF clients. He
would never have charged as much as
$1,000 for his services in this matter
you testified in regard to my visit
ing your office that ! exhibited a copy
of the trust deed. Did you not say
that you knew Of no trust deed?"