The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1903-07-31

hoped II he overstepped the bounds of
propriety they would excuse him I'M
der the circumstances. He trusted
that anything he might say under prov
ocation would not irritate the Court.
The Attorney General began at him
that morning. and he replied as PEI =
haps he had better not have done he
was built in such a way that when at
tackled ne retaliated, though it might
be better if he restrained his DISPOSE
ton in that regard.
The episode 70 which Mr.. Davis re-
ferred was his haunting the Attorney
C.:.-raI with having SU orn out ~itls'a
warrant for the arrest of H Z. Copper,
when Secretary of the Territory. on
the eve of that officials departure from
The Territory on one occasion, which
warrant he said the Attorney General
had 10 withdraw.
FIRST CIRCUIT JUDGE.
Judge De Bolt gave evidence regard
ing the work in the Sumner case done
before him by the respondent also the
discussion of the fees. Davis told him
he had a contract for his Zee AMI men
toned $500 as the figure. Witness was
surprised when he saw the nee.
A question as ID whether Sumner
would have got The $4S.o25 had it not
been for a certain motion made by re-
spondent having been disaiioNed, Mr.
Davis put in the entire stenograpfic re-
port Of the case.
W. G., Cooper. cashier of the First
National Bank, testified about the cir
curustances Of the depositins OF sum
ner's S4S. OPS, corroborating subs an-iaI-
~ the respondents testimony on that
matter. Witness as well as Ute Attor-
ney General objected 10 the question as
to how much of the money was left in
the bank and il wasdisallowed- he
submitted to the justices whether he
were bound TO answer how much mon
ey the respondent got out of IT. They
allowed him and ne said $1,000.
THAT'S MY BUSINESS"
6. NJ. Damon. head Of Bishop & Co,
bankers. gave the reason why he re
fused 10 pay the money out OF that
bank. He refused TO add 70 what ne
said. and his objection was sustained
That's my business was his answer
20 the question
Mr.. Davis. while waiting for the next
witness. said he would be willing 10
call every lawyer in Honolulu except
ing Andrews and Andrade to testify 10
his character.
ANOTHER TESTIMONIAL
W. l. Stanley. attorney. had known
the respondent for a number of years
Answering the question If he had ever
known anything against the character
Of the respondent, ne said Mr.. DAVIS
was a man who had been talked about
q good deal, in politics and otherwise
and as q rule when a man was rogue
his character as such would be can
vassed wherever ne was subject OF con-
versa ton. but ne had never heard any
reflection upon Mr. Davis's honesty OF
integrity in this community.
REBUTTAL-
p ". Davis was called in rebuttal-
The respondent objected that witness
could not be called 70 contradict his
lwn testimony. but withdrew the OBJ
lection rather than put the stenograpl-
~ 10 the trouble OF referring back 70
the notes of this witnesses former testl-
u0ny. Witness denied the employment
d the respondent by himself or ms
mother on cross exauina ton he al
uitted certain things had been done by
direction Of the respondent
T. McCauts Stewart testified TO Ger
tain pleadings in the Sumner case and