The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1903-07-01
SUMNER THE
WHOLE CASE
HENRY T.. HIGHTON GIVES HIS
ROUNDING THE OLD MAN.

Henry T.. Hightons views Of the
Sumner cases was explained at consid-
cradle length yesterday afternoon in
cross examination Of Highton by F. f. |
Thompson, in the Supreme court, /
Highton was very emphatic as to sum. d,
ner's sanity. He said he had often
discussed matters with sumner and
considered him as sane sany man
in Honolulu. This appeared TO greatly
tickle the old capitalist. Sumner went
into the lobby to indulge in audible
smiles. Highton also said that Sum-
ner could have won the suit brought
against him by the Oahu Railway and
Land Company if he had chosen to
fight it,
The Dowsett interests, I was told
received $1S5, goo for their half of the
lands" said Highton, while Sumner
wa sonly receiving Sl05,C0O / examined
the trust deed carefully and studied it
over, and Preached the conclusion that
the option of purchase by the Oahu
Railway could not be enforced. sum
Ler, however was determined to settle
the case" Highton also stated a num-
her of times that the old man had
absolutely determined that he would
end litigation, saying in one instance
that the old man had said that he
would never go on the witness stand
again.
Two letters We're introduced in evil
dence which clearly set forth Highton's
views of the respective rights of all
the persons involved at the time of the
settlement in October, and his views as
expressed on the witness stand. The
first is addressed TO the Ellises by
Highton and the second is their reply.
The letters are as follows:
October TO- 1902.
John X. Sumner, Esquire, William S.
Ellis Esquire, John 5. Ellis, Esquire,
Mrs Victoria Buffendeau
Oahu Railway & Land Co., vs. John
X. Sumner and Bishop of Panapolis.
Guardianship of John *. Sumner
John X. Sumner by his next Friend,
Maria S. Davis VS.. Oahu Railway &
Land Co., and Bishop of Panapols.
My employment in the first case
named above was originally for John 5.
Ellis, William S. Ellis and Victoria
Buffendeau, and it was agreed that my
! fee should be s., 800 of which $3.50 con-
shutting the retainer has Keen paid.
! When Mr.. John X. Sumner arrived,
August goth, 1902, it was further agreed
that I should represent him, as he was
and is the owner of the property IN
volved and entitled to the proceeds
! thereof. l considered, however. that
my employment necessarily embraced
the other proceeding and suit above
mentioned and that for them no ad-
ditional charge should be made. The
| amount to be paid to me, therefore, for
the entire litigation beyond what l have
| received, is Two Thousand Dollars.
| When Judge Humphreys left the
Bench, it was further agreed that he,
which of course meant the firm of
Humphreys, Thompson & Watson,
should also be employed specifically in
the guardianship case, and that his
and their fee should be Two Thousand
Five Hundred dollars. While his and
their employment was limited on the
record to the guardianship case, it was
understood to apply to the entire bust
ness, but more directly to the interests
of William S. Ellis, John E. Ellis and
| Mrs. Victoria Buffendeau.
| l. In the case of Oahu Railway and
Land Co.. VS.. John X. Sumner and the
!
time alive to move or plead on behalf
of Sumner, and have also thoroughly
prepared to file and support demurrer
to the bill of complaint.
?. The case of John X. Sumner, by
his next friend Maria S. Davis, on
his motion, has been dismissed, and
an appeal from the order taken to the
Supreme Court of the Territory of Ha-
NC Tn, Id 7
| have done a great deal of work
s. The guardianship case has been
on trial for the greater part of two
weeks, and all the proceedings, pre-
Iiminary and on the trial, have re-
ceived my personal and undivided at
tention, aided, as l have been, effctive-
ly, by Mr.. Thompson.
| | wish it to be distinctly understood
and acknowledged in writing by you
that, at no time, have ! recommended
any settlement of this litigation. Dur
| ing my entire life, l have been, and
now am, uncompromisingly opposed to
submission to Illegal eXactions. l be-
| lieve John X. Sumner to be in every
respect sane, competent and capable
of managing his own property and at
! tending to his own business, and this
| litigation, the objective point of which
is to take money from him which is ex-
clusively his own, in my opinion, is not
to be justified in law or fact Mr.
| Sumner, like other men, has a plain
right to do as he pleases with his prop
erty or money, and l absolutely decline
in a professional capacity, to endorse
any proposal which practically denies
this right.
But on Thursday, October 9Th, 1902,
in the presence of the Right Reverend
Gulstan F. Ropert, Bishop of Pana-
polis,-myself Mr. Thompson, the Ell
Uses, Mrs. Victoria Buffendeau, and
John X. Sumner being in attendance
it was definitely agreed that the en-
tire litigation might be settled on the