The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1903-06-26
CHARGES AGAINST
A, S, HUMPHREYS


ing said letter to be written was acting /.
against the interests of his client Joan
* sumner IN an alleged claim hostile
To John X. sumner which he had been
employed by John * Sumner to quiet
and satisfy and for which he had re-
ceived no releases from the Elises. That
in 50 preventing the said John X. sum
ner from disposing Of the moneys in
the bank, he was acting without faith
to his client I'm the very matter of trust
which ne had been employed by said
John h. Sumner to clear of all de-
mands. That in so doing the said
Humphreys caused his former clients
money to be tied up, and acted without
professional propriety, was guilty of
professional misconduct, and intidelity
to his client John X. Sumner.
THAT on or about the 22nd of Octo-
ber 1902. after debating said letter to
Bishop & Company and while there
was the sum of FOrty-eight thousand
and twenty-five CS4S.O2) Dollars de-
posted in the bank of Bishop & Com
pany, said Humphreys acting as at
torney for the three Ellises, went to
]. A. Magoon .as attorney for John X.
Sumner and proposed to said j. A.
Magoon to enter into an agreement
with him, the said A. :. Humphreys
whereby said J. A. Magoon should in
duce John *. Sumner. his client, to
submit a further and eXtortionate de-
mand on the aforesaid funds by the
said Ellises, and that said Humphreys
and Magoon should each demand and
take an unreasonably large fee there
for well knowing by doing so he,
M IN, nj, Il A
Magoon to act contrary to the interest
of and to betray his client, and to act
in violation of his oath 4 an attorney
and counselor at law.
THAT said Humphreys threatened
that unless his proposal was accepted
he would prevent by the use of legal
process. said John X. Sumner from
exercising any control over said funds
during the rest of his, the said John
X. Summers natural life.
THAT thereafter, on or about the 29th
day of October 1902, the Trustee filed
petition in the case of Gulstan F.
Ropert. as trustee for John *. Sumner
versus John X. Sumner. Victoria Ellis
Buffandeau. William 5. Ellis. John S.
Ellis, Maria s. Davis, Rt. Rev. Gulstan
f. Ropert Bishop of PanapOlis. and
! =. l..
Waity. Co-Partners doing business UNI
der firm name of Bishop & Company,
asking that a new Trustee be appointed
| in his place for John X. Sumner.
THAT in this case John X. Sumner,
! by ]. A. Magoon E. c. Peters and G. A.
! Davis as his attorneys, filed an an
swer, asking that the trust be declared
revoked and terminated.
That thereafter on or about the
| 18th day of December 1902 an answer
was filed in said suit on behalf of John
and William Ellis and Mrs. Victoria Ell
lis Buffandeau, by Frank f. Thompson
and T.. N. Watson as th-ir attorneys.
That the name of A. S. Humphreys
does not appear in the answer of the
said Ellises, though al the time of the
filing of asid answer A. 5. Humphreys
was partner of said attorneys.
THAT complainant charges that A
S. Humphreys did not appear as attor-
ney for the Eilses in their answer
aforesaid, because he knew full well
that having acted at attorney for John
X. Sumner in the guardianship case
and in settlement Of claims under the
trust, that he had no right to appear
against his client John X. Sumner in
case involving that same trust
THAT your petitioner charges that
a. S. Humphreys drew up the aforesaid
answer and your complainant further
charges that the said answer was filed
/ for the purpose of harassing John *.
| Sumner and enforcing a settlement,
wherein said Humphreys and the FL
Uses might receive additional sums of
money from said John X, Sumner in
| compromise of their alleged claims, and
reference is made to said answer on
file in the above entitled case, and
complainant asks that it be made a
part of this complaint
THAT at the hearing of said cause A.
S. Humphreys appeared for the said
! Ellises and asked that his name be
entered as counsel therefor. He con-
Quoted the case for said Ellises eX-
amined witnesses and made argument
before the Court, and in every way OPP
posed the interest and claims of John
X. Sumner in the said suit,
"That during said trial Frank f.
! Thompson, on behalf of A. S. Hum
phreys, as senior counsel for the Ellises
aforesaid made further demands upon
John X. Sumner and j. A. Magoon, his
attorney, whereby said Thompson, in
behalf of said Humphreys. offered to
settle all of said Ellises demands and
claims in said suit in consideration of
said John X. Sumner turning over to
the said Ellises a certain sum of money
including eXtortionate counsel fees for
the said firm of Humphreys, Thompson
& Watson. That all Of these demands
and eXtortions We're refused by said
John X. Sumner and his attorney j.
A. MagoOn.
complainant therefore charges that
said Humphreys and said Thompson
were not contesting this suit for and
in behalf of any legal rights to which
they believed the Ellises entitled, as
shown by their answer in the suit of
Ropert, as Trustee, versus John x.
Sumner ct al but merely and soiel}
for the purpose of eXtorting from said
~. IL -