The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1903-07-28

he denies having Hleu IHe certain uS-
murrer but admits he was responsible
for it. He does not remember whether
two of the twelve grounds OF the de-
murrer were for misjoinder of parties
then thought that the plaintiff, Bishop
Ropert as trustee, and John K Sumner,
the life tenant, were the only proper
parties to the bill. Sumner was urging
a speedy trial of the suit and respond
ent did not have the opportunity to
make as exhaustive a study Of the law
on the several grounds of demurrer as
he would have liked, the time being
mostly spent on the question of revoca-
bility of the trust upon which the case
was ultimately decided in favor of
Sumner.
REGARDS CHARGES PUERILE.
Mr.. Magoon submits, without inten-
ton of being disrespectful to the At
torney-General, that the allegations in
paragraph seven of the information
ARE trivial and puerile in the extreme"
Stewart that Wyllie Davis had no in
terest in the property. He goes on at
great length to intimate that this view
about Wyllie Davis came from Stewart
to him. Then he argues that it made
no difference, anyway, whether Wylhe
Davis was party or not. Davis would
have been bound by the decision of the
court, even If he had not consented to
the cancellation of the deed
He could not understand how the At
torney-General could have charged him
with fraud upon the Circuit Court in
the Davis trust deed matter, in view
of the correspondence between the At
torney-General and himself relative to
the investigation of the conduct of at
torneys which he quotes, and of the re-
port of the Attorney General to the Su-
preme Court in which he said:
Il find absolutely nothing in the ac-
lions Of ]. A. Magoon, Esquire, upon
which charges could be based before
your Honorable Court"
THE ADVERTISER BLAMED.
Respondent in this connection says:
THAT the attitude of the said Lorrin
Andrews at this time is entirely incon-
sistent with the statement in his re-
port and this deponent believes that
this shifting of the attitude Of the At
torney- General is due to too sensitive
regard for what might be taken as pub
lie opinion, as reflected in the columns
of the Pacific Commercial Advertiser,
which paper has relentlessly. malicious
ly and continuously traduced and
maligned respondent
He believes that the statement re-
garding the Wyllie Davis trust deed in
the affidavit was intended to influence
the Court improperly, as no mention
had hitherto been made of the trust
deed excepting an allusion in a brief of
A. S. Humphreys, upon which respond
ent comments:
TT will be seen from the above that
the only purpose for which even the
critical eye of opposing counsel could
use the matter of the trust deed to r.
w. Davis. was an abortive attempt to
throw discredit on the motives of re-
spondent, r. w. Davis and John L.
Sumner"
COLOSSAL SERVICES.
Thousands of words are used by re-
spondent to recount the services for |
which he received the fee of $4,000 from |
Sumner. He says that when Sumner |
lost confidence in himself and Geo. A. |
Davis and suggested the calling in of /
Ballou & McClanahan, the re-
spondent cheerfully consented but w. |
A. Kinney declined the offer, in letter |
quoted, unless he could have the con-
troll and direction of the case. Re-
spondent was willing to agree, as he
Humphreys and Thompson de-
sired to make the suit one for the trial
If personal differences between attor-
leys, but Geo. A. Davis would not
I
lid not come in.
CLAIMS FEE REASONABLE.
Mr.. Magoon says his fee depended al
most, if not wholly, upon the success
ul issue of the suit If Sumner had !,
allied. respondent believes that not only
would he have recovered no remunera-
ion for all the services rendered and
ime spent, but would not have received
Jack the costs paid in the suit and
he amounts he actually advanced for
he support of ]. K. Sumner for a long
ime, if ever.
He says the property of ]. K. Sumner {
lvolved in the trust was S4S.025 in cash I
nd real estate of the value of from 6
10. 900 to $4,000. maki~.g in all an es-
ate in the neighborhood of $4,000. d
aid suit being entirely successful, the 7
aid estate is now subject to the alb I
olute control of Sumner. and respond y
ut claims he might have charged $4,000
,r the services performed by himself =
nd associates in that suit. entirely 3
.parate and apart from any fee Sum- {
pr might be pleased to pay Geo. A. f,
avis.
DEFENDS MRS. DAVIS.
Mr.. Magoon proceeds at great length
recount good offices dcne by him for
INNER, mentioning his defense of the
h In case and defeat of the injunction T,
the S4s,O withdrawal. He defends b
rs. Maria Davis from the charge of d.
ackmail. and says the fee she paid Y
20. A Davis was me- own monev. If
Id Davis paid him half in accordance W
It'll agreement. Neither she nor her B
Ii. r. W. Davis, nor John X. Sumner. | Y
ough he has met tfem many times &C
ice. has ever suggested any dissatis- ey
ction in that matter.
FOR OPPORTUNITY.
In conclusion Mr.. Magoon thus ex- dc
esses himself: b,