The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1903-08-11

'sseseessseeessssseseseses 0
mediately subsequent proceedings re-
| speeding the same matter. If their re-
| lationship were that of attorney and
client to it's fullest extent, there could
| be but one conclusion, as stated by Mr..
| Humphreys at the hearing-that of
disbarment. Under the circumstances,
| something short of that would be suf-
| ficient. What the penalty should be
will depend to some extent upon the
nature of the settlement. In our opin-
ion it is an aggravating circumstance
that the respondents knew or ought to
have known that the settlement was
understood to be in full and that Sum
ner was to have the remaining s4S,025
absolutely. For the respondents to
take a position against Sumner after
wards in opposition to that under
standing shows greater disregard of
the requirements of professional
ethics
NOT GUILTY HERE.
The court goes over the evidence
about tie omission of the respondents
to obtain a release from The Ellises
after Mr.. Humphreys had insisted on
a release from the Davisas. 1t says
while it would have been a wise course
to pursue the court does not find the
respondents guilty as to that. mo
such releases We're contemplated. The
distribution was made on the theory
that the money was Summers and that
no releases were needed"
PROFFERED RESTITUTION.
The testimony of the Ellises all
through is that Sumner wished to give
them $4,000 apiece, the court remarks
and thus comments:
"Mr. Highton regarded these pay
ments to the Ellises as purely volun-
tary gifts by Sumner to his relatives,
arranged between themselves as
family matter, and that they had no
legal connection with the settlement.
Mr.. Humphreys now goes so far as to
say that, in his opinion his firrl should
return the $4,000 received by them at
the settlement and the 81, 900 afterwards
received as their fee from the Ell3SeS
in the Ropert case, because they were
unfaithful to their clients, the ElliseS,
in not securing the balance of the mon
ey for them by a new trust deed, but,
although he contends that he was en-
ployed by the Ellises chiefly in the mat
ter of a proposed new trust deed, neith-
CT ne HOT suggested SuCA d
deed at the time of the settlement, al
though Thompson consulted with Hum
phreys on the Thursday and Friday
before and told him what it was pro-
posed to do and Humphreys suggested
getting a release from the Davises. 1t
may be added in passing that Mr..
Humphreys says that he had intended
to return the fees but had not intimat-
ed that intention to any one before be-
cause he did not have the money,
though he also says that his firm was
doing a business of $3.50 a year. Mr..
Thompson on the other hand contends
that his firm earned its fees because
it was through their efforts that the
Ellises secured $4,000 from Summer.
but all the evidence on both sides
shows that Sumner proposed himself to,
give them that sum and insisted on
doing so. The respondents may have
been entitled to their fee under their
contract, but not because they secured
$4,000 for the Ellises."
HIGHToN INDICATED.
After dealing at further length with
the settlement, quoting Attorney High
toms letter to the Ellises, etc, the court
says:
I'm closing the discussion on this
branch of the case, already protracted
far more than intended, reference must
be made to the question of Mr.. High
tons credibility. To judge from their
arguments one would suppose that the
respondents chief defense was abuse of
the other side, particularly the Attor-
ney-General who is prosecuting at the |
request of the court and as a result of |
Investigations set in motion by the re-
spondents themselves, and more par
ticuiarly Mr.. Highton and Mr. Magoon. |
The principal ground for attacking the |
credibility Of these two witnesses seems !
to be in general that they must both |
have been moved to perjure themselves |
by way of revenge against the respond !
ents because of shameful abuse heaped |
upon them by the respondents They |
also endeavor to show that these wit
nesses falsified in certain particulars. |
Referring TO Mr.. Highton alone in con-
nection with this branch of the case,
we may remark in general that, in our |
opinion, the calumnies. for they are