The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1903-07-10
REVIEWING THE FACTS.

|
'Lorrin Andrews, Attorney General,
in beginning the closing review of the
facts for the prosecution, said 1t was
not a case where the prosecution vas
required to prove the guilt of the &C.
' cused beyond reasonable shadow OF
doubt. 1t was a case where the public
and the bar must be protected from
tricky and INSCRIPTIONS conduct OF
attorneys These respondents had been
shown guilty of tricky and unscrupu-
lousness. The case was a clear one
and they should be punished.
NO SPRING CHICKENS.
Humphreys and Thompson were not
new or unsophistlcated practitioners.
They were not liable TO make mistakes
of ignorance or even inadvertence.
Humphreys had testified he was as
an early part of his career. He had
also sworn to his firms having a prac-
tice of $4,000 a year, which would be
about three-fourths of the entire law
practice of Honolulu. Thompson was
also recognized as a lawyer of ability.
The Attorney General then took up
the leading points of the testimony,
using that of the respondents them
selves to fix their accountability for
~. tanfi ,,pr ha frta ~f
He also brougt in documentary evil
dence to contradict their testimony in
different particulars.
TELLTALE DOCUMENTS.
The settlement receipts prepared by
Thompson we've in this category, show
ing that he recognized Sumner as the
owner of the money that was divided
amongst clients and lawyers in the
partition" effected without the inter-
mediary of court of partition.
1t was also shown that the affidavit
in the original railway suit which
Humphreys swore Magoon acquainted
him about in the midnight ride, was as
matter of fact prepared by the firm
of Humphreys & Gear and perhaps
written by Humphreys himself.
NO QUESTION LEFT.
The records left no question. Mr..
Andrews said, that these attorneys act
ed as they had no right to act. If a
man was allowed to come into court
and dispute the record, what conf
dence would remain in courts of rec
ord? Suppose Sumner had refused
to pay Humphreys, Thompson & Wat
son, what evidence would there be but
the record and the testimony of the
attorneys for the various parties upon
which they could recover?
If man went on the record at at
torney for a certain party and then
came into court and said he had
prior engagement with parties outside
the record, what confidence could there
and client?
THOMPSoN'S MEMORY.
Thompson testified that his connec-
ton with Sumner was adverse in its
inception and adverse throughout.
that he gave that testimony. What
reliance was there to be placed on his
testimony of what happened nine
month ago, If he could make what he
called a lapsus linguae about such a
serious matter?
Respondents We're disingenuous when
We're opposed to the settlement They
they did not know what was
in a pleading by which they were
bound, and that IL they did know it Il
was absolutely wrong.
HIGHToN'S OPINION.
1t was comparatively immaterial
Highton believed that deed Of
trust revocable or otherwise. IN the
18th of October, when his relations |
with Humphreys and Thompson were
friendly, he wrote a letter in which
he said that 1t was understood that
when Humphreys retired from the
bench he should come into the case
as representative for Sumner and that
his fee was to be $500.
JETTIsoNS CARGO.
Mr.. Andrews called attention to the
testimony of Humphreys that he did
not countenance certain doings of
Thompson. He didn't know OF certain
things done by Thompson in his busi-
ness, though head of the firm and talk
ing, in his evidence, OF sending and
ordering Thompson to do this and that.
The rapidity with which Humphreys
jettisoned cargo was remarkable. First |
he throws Thompson overheard. Then
he jettisons his fee, says he never
earned it. Then throws the Enises