The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1903-06-29
HUMPHREYS FILES
HIS ANSWERS
DEN1ALs OF THE CHARGES
BROUGHT by ANDREWS IN THE
SUMNER CASE.

Judge Humphreys on Saturday fled
in the Supreme Court his answer TO the
charges filed against himself and +. Z.
Thompson in the Sumner case. Hum
phreys denies that he was attorney for
John X. Sumner in the railway case, or
in defending the guardianship suit. He
says that the firm of Humphreys,
Thompson and Watson was signed to
Summers answer, but that it was done
by Thompson without any knowledge
as to its contents and with the ex-
press understanding that that firm
were not and would not be attorneys
for Sumner in any matter. The firm
was representing the Ellises.
Humphreys denies that he took any
part in the settlement whereby Mrs.
Maria S. Davis received $4,000, that
the payment of 100000 to the Ellises
was a part of this deal, and that the
Ellises gave no consideration for the
money. He alleges that the consider
| q ton was the consent of the said
Ellises to the payment by the said
Sumner to the Bishop of Panopolis Of
the sum of $4,000, and the payment to
| said Maria S. Davis of the sum of S15,
900, out of the said moneys received
from said oahu Railway & Land Com
| pany and in which moneys it was then
| believed said Ellises had an interest
as remaindermen."
| 1t was well understood, says the res
| pendent, that there was to be no re-
lease signed by the Ellises when they
received the 100000. The statement
that Sumner paid the firm a fee of So
500 for their services to him is also
denied. The money was paid out of
the railway money, with the consent of
all parties concerned, says Humphreys.
for services rendered to the Erises.
Humphreys denies that he made
proposals to Magoon for compromise,
by which further sums were to be ex-
torted from Sumner. All offers of
compromise came from the other side,
says the respondent.
Respondent admits the information
as to appearances of attorneys in the
suit for a new trustee, and that he pre-
pared the answer for the Ellises with
out his name appearing therein, but
denies that he did not appear in such
answer because he knew he had no
right to appear against his client
Sumner He denies that the new
trusteeship suit was for the purpose
of harrassing Sumner. On the con-
trary, he AYERS it was prosecuted by
himself and Thompson in good faith.
Finally. when he contended before
the Supreme Court that the trust was
irrevocable, he did not do so with any
knowledge that in the answer filed for
and on behalf of said Sumner in SAID
guardianship proceedings it had beer
stated that said Sumner could dispose
OF his property as he saw fit He ther
enters general denial to leach ant
every allegation, charge, statement, in
ference and conclusion in said infor
nation contained, which may impute L
him fraud, malpractice, deceit, profess
sional improprieties, infidelity to hi'
clients and gross misconduct or any
other conduct tending to detract from
his professional or personal dignity and
honor and his usefulness as a member
of the bar and as a citizen
Respondent submits to the candid
judgment of others his professional
ability, but he begs leave to assert tina
he has never broken faith with any
client or at any time abandoned a higf
conception of personal and professional
honor" he says at the end of the his.
torical sketch. concluding:
And now having fully answered sait
information, respondent prays thu
judgment of this honorable court ex
onerating him from the charges therein
contained