The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1903-06-27
SERIOUS CHARGES.

his client, and gross misconduct, in
the manner following, to wit" I
Humphreys is said to have, between
August 20 and September 6, 1902, pro-
cured himself 10 be the attorney for
John K. Summer, with H. z. Highton
as his associate, in the suit OF the o.
R. & L. Co. against Summer and Bis
hop Ropert, trustee, to enforce an
agreement to sell given by Sumner.
which suit was settled without trial
by the payment of $4,000 by the
plaintiff company to Sumner and his
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
leging he was insane when he exc
cuted the agreement with the railroad
company, also when he executed
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 full control and DISPOSE
ton of the fruits and avails of his
property, and intended to dispose Of
his property as he chose.
During the tendency of the guard
ianship action, Humphreys and
Thompson acquired a 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 settlement
whereby Maria S Davis received $10,
| 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
| Uses were given $50, 900. but Hum
nhreys and Thompson procured no re-
lease of any kind from them, though
we'll knowing the payment should be
| in full release of all claims against
| Summer in the matter of guardianship
ROUND FEE CHARGED.
| Humphreys and Thompson charged
| Summer and were paid by him $2500 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 eli
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 $4s, OBS to be given up to him and
deposited with Bishop & Co.. bankers.
RIGHT ABOUT FACE.
Subsequently, about October %,
Humphreys, as attorney for the Ell
| Uses, 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-
J tee, as they claimed the deposit was
made in violation of the 1898 trust
| deed, of which they were the benef1-
| Charles, 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 Ellises had been COM
promised and settled. Humphreys, Gin
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 monev to be tied up."
he "acted without professional pro-
priety" and he "was guilty of profess
sional misconduct and infidelity to his
client Sumner
CORRUPT PROPOSAL.
1t is alleged that Humphreys, acting
for the Ellises, went to Magoon acting
for Summer, land proposed to enter
into an agreement with him whereby
Magoon should induce Sumner, his eli
ent, to submit to a further and eX-
tortionate demand on the funds by the
Ellises and that Humphreys and Ma
COON should each demand an unreason-
ably large fee therefor, we'll knowing
he (Humphreys) was urging Magoon
to betray his client.
Also, that Humphreys threatened I'M
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 it's concluding parts the complaint
h. af
torneys. as some passages are quoted
verbatim and others condensed be-
low:
tt is related that on October 90. 1892.
the suit of Ropert VS.. Sumner e. al,
for a new trustee was instituted. Sum
ner filed an answer by his attorneys,
Magoon. Peters and Davis. asking that