The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1904-01-22

Justice Frear, the petition of George "A
Davis for rehearing of the case of his
disbarment is denied.
Justice Galbraith files dissenting
opinion
From the syllabus of the decision of
the court here given, the grounds of
the petition as well as of it's denial are
made clear. 1t is as follows:
THE SYLLABUS.
The rendering of a previous judg-
ment held not to disqualfy judge,
because such judgment was rendered
in another case and upon a question
not involved in the case in which the
objection Of disqualitications is pre-
sented.
That a judge on three different occa-
sions some years ago punished an at
torney for contempt of court does not
of itself show bias or prejudice on the
part of such Judge against the attor-
ney.
Upon the facts stated in the opinion
judge of the court held not to be
disqualified by reason of interest as al
legged.
A rehearing will not be granted on
the ground that the Chief Justice of
this Court, not called at the trial, is
material witness, no intimation having
been given at or before the trial that
the proposed witness could give any
testimony as to what testimony, If
any, he could give, If called and no
desire having been expressed that he
testify and no intimation being even
now given as to what he could testify
to; or, in a disbarment case, on the
ground that the party supposed to be
aggrieved by the misconduct of the at
torney was not called by the Attorney
ney General as a witness; or on the
ground that a necessary and material
witness was absent from the jursdic-
ton at the time of the trial, where no
showing is made as to what his testi-
mony would be, If called, and where,
in submitting the case to the Court for
decision, the party now asking for the
rehearing expressly said that he would
not call the witness but would close
without his testimony.
In disbarment case no complaint by
the party supposed to be aggrieved is
necessary. Any information may in
General.
Ratification, If any, by a client or
other party most interested, of mis-
conduct of an attorney, does not bind
the Court or affect it's duty in pro-
ceeding for disbarment.
In a disparment case, it is not a de-
fense that at the time of the alleged
misconduct the attorney was a District
Magistrate.
This Court may in proper case dis
bar an attorney whose license was
originally granted by the Supreme
Court of the Republic of Hawaii, and
who since the Organic Act took effect
has not received a new license from
this Court or taken the oath prescribed
by Sec 10 of the Organic Act.
DISQUALIFICATION CONSIDERED.
Following are extracts from the opin-
ion dealing with the disqualification of
two members of the Court as alleged
by Davis:
That the writer had prior to these
proceedings as Circuit, Judge passed
upon the question of j. X. Summers
sanity did not disqualify him as mat
ter of law for that previous judgment
was not rendered in this case nor is
this an appeal or new trial in that
case. The provision of the Organic
Act is, Section 81, that mo judge shall
sit on an appeal. or new trial, in any
case, in which he may have given
previous judgment" The question of
whether or not Sumner was insane
within the meaning of our statute on
guardianship. was not even in issue in
this case, nor was It passed upon. On
the subject of bias and prejudice, the
only fact stated in support of the con-
tention Is that on three different occa-
sious some years ago the writer as
Circuit Judge punished the respondent
for contempt. 1t is not even alleged
that the punishment was undeserved.
The writer has no hesitation in say
ing that in fact no bias or prejudice
exists or existed at the time of the
trial and the Court finds that no cause
has been shown for believing that any
exists or existed.
The provision (Sec. SD of the Organic
Act with reference to which the sug-
geston that the Chief Justice is dis
qualified is made, is that mo person
shall sit as a judge in any case
in which his relative by affinity or by
consanguinity within the third degree
Is interested, either as plaintiff or de-
fendant. or in the issue of which the
said judge may have. either di-
rcctly or through such relative, any
pecuniary interest" The facts relied
upon are that the Chief Justice Is a
stockholder in the Oahu Railway n
Land Co. and trustee for its bond
holders and that he is related within
the degree named to Mr., II. f, Diling-
ham, an officer of and stockholder in
that corporation. 1t appeared in evil
dence during the hearing, in connec-
tlon with one of the charges against
the respondent, that the latter obtained
$4,000 from the railroad company in the
l .t