The Hawaiian gazette., 1903-07-10

fact, w. s. Ellis interpreted the lette
into Hawaiian for the others.
Mr.. Thompson objected to a question
carrying some of his evidence, partl.
because he said the Attorney Genera
gave garbled version of 1t. He ap
pealed to the record and there was
protracted search for the passage want
ed in the stenographer's notes. Wit
ness did not remember exactly, bu
had an impression that he handed tn,
Ellis answer to Thompson in witness.
own office. and not in that of Hum
phreys, Thompson & Watson. Yer,
likely he did hesitate to sign tina
firms name.
WHAT HE DID KNOW.
Witness could not say IL 1t was un'
| derstood at the settlement that the re-
mainder was to be over for the benefit
of the Ellises, but did know it was un.
derstood that the remainder-that was
the $4,000 less the several payments
should be held by the Bishop as trustee
for John X. Sumner.
1t was not true what Humphreys
said about obtaining copy of the
Ellis letter from witness. On the 18th
of December Humphreys asked him
for copy of the letter, which was
written on the 22nd of October, and
witness furnished him with a copy the
next day, December 49, 1902 He knew
the dates exactly because he kept a
record.
Mr.. Humphreys here stated that Mr..
Andrews misquoted his testimony, as
there was nothing inconsistent in 1t
with the statement now made by wit
ness.
HUMPHREYS PLEASANT.
Witness met Humphreys in Bethel
street and in conversation told him he
wrote the Ellis letter for his own pro-
lection. After the 18th of December he
met him occasionally and Humphreys
was always pleasant.
Mr.. Highton here began to tell about
a matter put in his hands by Wilson
and Denman, clients, and was relating
that he had seen s. M. Damon, Cecil
Brown, Denman, ETC., about Kona Su-
gar Co. bonds. when Justice Galbraith
asked the Attorney General what was
the use Of all that. Mr.. Andrews as
sured the court that 1t was connected
with the evidence of Humphreys about
the interview with Highton in his Of
flee. Witness claimed for himself he
had the right to show how he went to
H., T. & WIS office.
Mr.. Humphreys (echoing a remark
by Mr.. Thompson)-"And how you
were kicked out"
THE STATEMENT UNTRUE.
Mr.. Highton-"No, 1 was not; that
part is not true"
Witness went on to say that he was
telephoned for (Thompson interrupted
sarcastically to say witness might as
well say If the telephone was working
that day.: found Humphreys sitting
there alone in his own office. Hum
phreys said to him, you went to Mr..
Damon first?" YES" witness answer
ed. Humphreys then said, you knew
that we were attorneys for all the
bondholders?" II did not" was the
reply.
HUMPHREYS SURLY.
Humphreys then dropped the bust
ness on which witness went and re-
ferred to the Sumner business. He
charged witness with writing a letter
and produced a letter, reading extracts
from it; then called in Thompson;
Humphreys became rude and unman
nerly, and said, This is the reddest
outrage that I have ever encountered
in my professional experience" Wit
ness suggested that perhaps his clients
would call on him personally. He then
picked up his hat and said Good af-
ternoon," to which Humphreys re-
sponded Good afternoon" and witness
walked out.
DENIES THE DAMNING.
Mr.. Highton stated that, as to the
epithets Humphreys and Thompson
swore were applied to him by Hum
phreys, they were not used-at least
not in his presence.
Cross by Thompson, wit
ness said it was altogether likely be
with Judge Humphreys
down to March this year; his relations
with him were pleasant until that time.
Asked If his record book showed the
with Humphreys that
so abruptly, witness replied,
Yes, here 1t is, I will show 1t to you"
He then read an account of the con-
ending with this resolution:
after a somewhat unpleasant dis
cussion I left the office and hereafter
am pau with Judge Humphreys"
Again he denied that he had been
called a cursed scoundrel and fraud.
in other words sworn to by the re-
spondents, to his face by Judge Hum
phreys, adding, 1T was there and my
hearing is tolerably good"
TO THE COURT.
Mr.. Highton answered a series Of
questions by the court, started by JUS
ice Perry. He said the only person
he represented technically was John
K. Sumner, but as Sumner wanted to |
,ay the Elises money he incidentally
represented them; must have had con-
,ersation with Thompson before wri-
ing the Ellis letter. because Thompson
the receipts for the settle
nent; the matter was all talked over
and Thompson might have
,nown amounts to put in without
direction of witness.
CLAIMS PRIVILEGE.
Mr.. Thompson claimed the right,
ince the court had opened the matter
f distribution. to question witness on
he same line previously disallowed.
)ne reason was to test the memory
Z witness. another to show that Hum
hreys. Thompson & Watson were not
for the missing $500 and odd
1A1 10 IN he