Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1903-08-01

NNblliultu ITOH rage D.
exclusion of Maria s. Davis. his own
| sister and heir. The suit was brought
In good faith to prevent this. Sumner,
in the opinion of counsel, did not have
tcstamentary capacity at the time he
was about to sell the land to the said
corporation. The payment of the ex.
ira ten thousand dollars was brought
about by the efforts of counsel. When
the suit was instituted then was in.
tention to get $4,000 for Maria S.
Davis, and none has been proved. Sum.
ner and his heirs all signed the deed
To- this corporation and Sumner paid
his sister ten thousand dollars out OF
the proceeds Of this sale: the sister
paid her counsel, who had done the
work and was entitled TO his fees, for
the receipt of this. $4,000, twenty-five
hundred dollars. In the absence OF
my client II Is sought to disbar me;
II Is submitted hat there Is not a
sctntilla Of evidence as to this case to
support the allegations OF the informa.
ton.
Tho guardianship proceedings were
instituted in good faith and were dis.
continued on the settlement; the ten
thousand dollars was paid over by
Mr.. Hatch, the counsel for the corpor.
alton, to the trustee o. Sumner after
the settlement OF the suit and equity,
and by the trustee paid to me. as
counsel for Mrs. Davis. who received
the same and. by my advice, deposited
II in the First National Bank to the
credit OF Maria S. Davis, where I left
It. She signed the deed as one OF the
heirs of the man whom II is contended
had not testamentary capacity, nor
was he competent to consummate
such a large transaction. It was both
for the best interests of Maria s. Da.
Wis and John X. Sumner that these
proceedings were instituted. The con.
tcntion that there was an abuse of le-
gal process is absurd. No such
questions were raised at the time and
the suits were both discontinued and
settled by and under the direction OF
all the persons interested. Il Is sub.
nitted that II Is now too late to review
the action Of counsel. even II he had
done wrong, but 1t appears from the
evidence that all the proceedings were
commenced in good faith under the dl.
rection of Maria 5. Davis and discon.
tinued and settled with her full knowl.
edge and consent and Of Sumner also.
Good faith Is shown by the evidence
OF Hon. +. NJ. Hatch; all the persons
interested we're represented by indie
pendent counsel and this evidence is
uncontradlcted. The acts of the parties
In signing the deed to the corporation
receiving tho money and executing the
release by the advice of respondent to
John X, Sumner show good faith, hon
est professional work and support the
of the respondents answer.
Maria S. Davis. the respondents eli.
ent, has never questioned his good
faith or professional conduct or by
the gentleman who filed the informa-
ton against him had questioned il, to-
wit, Attorney General Andrews, who
filed his report that is quoted in an
other paragraph Of this brief The stat
ute law of this Territory it is submit
ted to this court is binding. Sec. 1898
provides that they may be fined I'M
prisoned or dismissed upon the COM
plant OF any party aggrieved by their
malpractice. Why, the only person
who had any interest in the $500 paid
TO me made no complaint, was not a
witness or present on the hearing.
Again, the want Of good faith Of tho
Attorney General Is urged upon this
Court. This Is summary proceed
ing, the information was served upon
me on Saturday, the 25th day OF July,
and was heard on Wednesday and
Thursday. the 29th and Both days OF
July, A. d. 1908, Sumner lost moths
Ing, he got ten thousand dollars more
for his property than he agreed to sell
II for, through the efforts OF this re-
spondent He can hardly DO called an
aggrieyed party either at common law
or under Chapter 81 of the Civil Laws.
Where is the evidence OF infidelity.
fraud or Misrepresentation says the
Supreme Court OF Ill. in The People VS.
Harvey, Al I'll. 27S. The cases must be
clear and free from doubt not only as
TO the act charged but as to the motive.
Where Is the motive or act to injure
any person in this matter? II the get
ting OF the extra ten thousand dollars
for Sumner property and consummat-
Ing the settlement was an illegal act
then | am guilty OF the payment 10
this old mans sister OF ten thousand
dollars when she was dependent ON
his bounty" for support was an Illegal
act then am guilty as charged by the