The Hawaiian gazette., 1903-06-30

trustee.
After the beginning and before the
settlement of said suit Maria s. Davis
sister of Sumner, brought an action
against Sumner to put him under
guardianship as an insane person. al
legng he was insane when he exc
cuted the agreement with the railroad
company, also when he executed n
deed of trust to Gulstan F. Ropert on
September II, 1898.
SAY ONE THING.
Humphreys and Thompson, as mem
bers of the firm aforesaid, with High
ton, filed an answer setting up that
Sumner had fun control and DISPOSE
ton of the fruits and avails of his
property, and intended to dispose of
his property as he chose.
During the pendency of the guard
ianship action, Humphreys ana
Thompson acquired full knowledge OF
the contents of the trust deed therein
attacked.
Maria s. Davis sister, and William
Ellis and John Ellis, grandnephews
and Victoria Ellis Buffandeau, grand
niece, of Sumner were his heirs ap
parent.
Humphreys and Thompson. while at
torneys for Sumner in the guardian
ship matter. arranged a settlemen
whereby Maria S. Davis received $40.
900 for herself and $4,000 for the pay
ment of her attorneys, in satisfaction
of any claims. present or future, she
might have against Sumner under the
trust deed. which release Humphreys
and Thompson, as attorneys for Sum-
ner. dictated and procured
AS part of the settlement the FL
lises were given 100000, but Hum
phreys and Thompson procured no re-
lease of any kind from them. though
well Knowing the payment should be
in full release of all claims against
Sumner in the matter of guardianship.
ROUND FEE CHARGED.
Humphreys and Thompson charged
Sumner and were paid by him $25O0 for
their services in the guardianship and
the railroad suits.
In arranging the settlement MENTION
ed Humphreys and Thompson acted
contrary to the interest of their cli-
ent, Sumner, and Highton declined to
take part in the settlement and pro-
tested against it.
After the settlement and the pay
ment of these moneys, Maria S. Davis,
about October IA, 1902, discontinued her
suit in the matter of the guardianship.
About October 81, 1902 Sumner en-
ployed j. A. Magoon as his attorney,
and caused the moneys remaining in
the hands of Ropert as trustee, be-
ing s4S,025, to be given up to him and
deposited with Bishop & Co.. bankers.
DJrII,r ApnJTu, EArE
Subsequently, about October %,
Humphreys, as attorney for the Ell
lises, caused them to sign a letter
Bishop & Co., warning that firm not
to pay the moneys so deposited to
anyone save on the order of the trus-
tee, as they claimed the deposit was
made in violation of the 1898 trust
deed. of which they We're the benefi-
ciaries, stating also that they were
about going to take legal steps to en-
force their claim.
Humphreys and Thompson we'll knew
at this time, and had already set up
as Summers attorneys in the guardian
ship matter, that the moneys were
subject to the control of Sumner, and
they had already taken an active part
in the distribution of the larger part
of the fund. They we'll knew that the
claims of the Ellses had been COM
promised and settled. Humphreys. "in
causing the said letter to be written,
was acting against the interests of his
client Sumner in an alleged claim hos
tile to Sumner, which he had been en-
ployed by Sumner to quiet and salts
fy." Thus he was "acting without
faith to his client" he "caused his
former clients money to be tied up"
he "acted without professional pro-
priety," and he was guilty. of profess
sional misconduct and infidelty to his
client sumner"
CORRUPT PROPOSAL.
1t is alleged that Humphreys. acting
for the Ellises, went to Magoon acting
for sumner land proposed to enter
into an agreement with him whereby
Magoon should induce Sumner, his ci-
ent, to submit to n further and ex-
tortionate demand on the funds by the
Ellises and that Humphreys and Ma
goon should each demand an unreason-
ably large fee therefor, we'll knowing
he OHumphreys) was urging Magoon
to betray his client.
Also, that Humphreys threatened un-
less his proposal was accepted to pre-
vent by legal process Sumner from
controlling the money the rest of his
(Sumner's) natural life.
In its concluding parts the complaint
sums up accusations against the at
torneys, as some passages are quoted
verbatim and others condensed be-
low:
1t is related that on October 90 1902.
the suit of Ropert VS.. Sumner ct al,
for n new trustee was instituted. sum-
ner filed an answer by his attorneys,
Magoon, Peters and Davis, asking that
the trust be declared revoked and ter
minated on December 1S, 1902 Thomp-
son and Watson filed an answer on
behalf OF the Ellises, in which the
name OF Humphreys did not appear
though a. the time he was n partner
| of those attorneys.
"BR'ER RABBIT LAYS LOW"