The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1904-03-17

| Third: The agreement was for pro-
fessional services in the guardianship
case and the other cases mentioned
above, already pending, and was for
one-third of all moneys, evidences of
Indebtedness, chooses in action, and
property recovered by the clients or to
which they might be entitled or which
| they might receive in relation to such
actions, whether received from the es-
tate of Sumner during his lifetime or
after his death by way of devise, in
heritance or in any other manner, Civ
ing to the attorneys a. lien and first
charge thereon. 1t does not appear how
any money or property could be ex-
pected by Maria s. Davis and r. w.
Davis as logical result of such ac-
! lions.
Mr.. Magoon's evidence on the mat
ter, Judge Dole says, lis vague and
unsatisfactory" And, while respond
ent's relation to the agreement is held
to be uncertain, the court remarks:
Although respondent denies any re-
sponsibility in the preparation OF the
agreement for compensation except
signing his name thereto, it appears
that in the proceedings for a rehearing
of the disbarment before the Supreme
Court, he referred to this agreement IN
his brief and appeared to rely upon it
in attacking the testimony of r. ".
Davis and J. A. Magoon.
Again, on the agreement, the court
says:
There was sufficient legitimate reason
for bringing these suits, as L have set
forth above, but this written agree
for, tioT, COMING in
later date, has the appearance of
new design on the part of counsel which
did not exist up to that time.
Under all the circumstances, Judge
Dole says further on, ST cannot reach
the conclusion that respondent was in
no way responsible for such agreement,
and find that, although he may have
thoughtlessly signed it he afterwards,
as set forth above, acted upon it"
The charge that Davis made false
representations to John K. Sumner
about getting his $4S, OPS out of Bishops
bank is found not sustained.
AS to the charge that Davis extorted
$4,000 from Sumner by threatening to
sue him on his promissory note for
$1,000 Judge Dole holds that the matter
was one between attorney and client.
which, although perhaps open to criti-
cism, was not, in my opinion, conduct
which supports the charge of gross
improperly"
says:
In the consideration of this case,
some allowance must be made for the
peculiar disposition of the respondent;
his impetuous nature, and excitable
temper which, at times, carrying him
to the verge of unreasonableness and
perhaps to an almost abnormal mental
condition, renders his words and actions
less significant in such circumstances
than would be the case with a person
of a calmer and more deliberate tenn
permanent.
The court finds that the fee of $4,000
obtained by respondent for himself and
his fellow counsel in the earlier pro-
ceedings was an eXorbitant charge for
the services rendered"
This unreasonable charge for fees,
Judge Dole says later on, taken in
connection with the written agreement
for such fees set forth above, implyI lg
a purpose to misuse the process of the
court for obtaining them, shows mis-
conduct on the part of the respondent
that the court cannot ignore. 1t is true
that there is no complaint agar So ra-
spondent by any of his clients, yet the
conciliatory nature of many Hawaiians
is such, and their submissiveness to-
wards foreigners so great, that hey
will, in many cases, silently yield to
harsh demands, and it is the duty of
the court to protect Iitigants even
though they make no complaint, from
such treatment by attorneys of this
court
Reference is made to the testimony
of attorneys and layrnen as to respond
ent's integrity, which the court thinks