The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1903-07-10

When the devil was sick the devil
monk would be:
When the devil got we'll the devil
monk was he.
THE FEES CONSIDERATION
Mr.. Thompson said he got his fee 70
protecting the Ellises in n trust an'
yet he signed a receipt showing tina
he represented Sumner. He wanted !
understood that this was trust funt
which could not be disturbed and We
he signed receipts that showed thi
understanding was a lie. His state
ment that he never saw thar letter o
the Bishops directing the payment,
before he wrote those receipts show
ed him to be the most remarkable at.
torney that ever practiced at the Ha.
waiian bar.
WORTHLESS EVIDENCE.
The evidence of the Ellises was
worthless. All of them remembered
every word Of a conversation that took
place nine months ago, even to the
beautiful ALTERATION Of darkening
Daviss door.
The defense was notable In the de-
malls Of their own signatures by the
resp dents. The most remarkable
denial was that Of the Ellises. There
was nothing in that letter which any
person of ordinary intelligence could
not understand. 1t was read and
translated by one Of them-there were
but four or five words in it-but all
Of them testified that they did not I'm
derstand it.
One fact stood out clear. This was
that the respondents worked hard for
the Ellises-to get every cent they
could Of Summers money.
CUTTLEFISH TACTICS.
The Attorney General concluded with
some burning words about the cuttle-
fish tactics of the respondents, in their
trying to raise a cloud of sepia to
darken the r putation of a gentleman
who had been for many years an
honored member of the California bar.
Judge Humphreys had told .f his hav-
ing been shown a document by Mr..
Highton in Cunha's saloon-as IL he
wanted to create the impression that
Mr.. Highton was intoxicated-but had
to take the statement back.
The incident in their office reflected
less credit on the respondents than 1t
did on Mr.. Highton. Here was a man
of over 70 years of age, cowardly at
tackled by them in their own office,
Humphreys calling in his partner as II
afraid to attack the visitor alone.
Mr.. Andrews concluded at 1855.
HUMPHREYS BEGINS.
Mr.. Humphreys began his argument
for himself by explaining why he had
changed his mind about submitting his
case on the evidence. 1t was on ac-
count of the unfair and biased argu-
ment to which he had listened. The
matter was one that affected the in
tegrity of the court, for he believed
that practitioners, as officers of courts,
ought to be almost as much above re-
proach as the twelve men who follow
ed the Prince of Peace through Cali
lee.
Lawyers were the most abused class
of people on earth. He agreed with
the prosecution that they ought to be
held to the rigid performance of their
duties and obligations.
Reference was made to the environ
ment of the case. The prosecuting wit
ness was a man eighty-seven years of
age, apparently ready to walk beside
the beautiful river. His possession of
s110, 900 and it's partial distribution had
an impression in the commu-
nifty that his attorneys had betrayed
him. All the circumstances We're such
spondents, making an environment
which appealed to the conscience and
he solemn responsibility of the court.
Mr. Humphreys quoted passage /
rom Sir Matthew Hale about certain |
rhine which, more than any other, in
cited populace to mob violence and
applied Sir Matthews caution in that
'egard to the present case. Replying |
% Mr., Weaver's citation of law against |
him. he said that from start to finish
here had been no offer by him to re-
'und one dollar to John X. Sumner.
CITES A JUSTICE.
The money was taken from Sumner |
by mistake in which one OF the JUS
ices OF that court had participated. 1t
vas taken under persistent and de-
claim Of right.
The speaker read an anecdote illus
rative of Roman law. the point of
which u,os contained In tho ouarxy ~ L