The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1904-08-17
KINNEY SUES
SAM PARKER
Claims Damages
For $4,000
for Libel.
Attorney Hits Back at
Ranchrnan of
Mana.
Sensational Charges Filed On
Monday Develop Into a
Boomerang.

1 L $500
ranch controversy came yesterday after
; noon when attorney w. A. Kinney filed
. damage suit for $4,000 against Samuel
Parker Attorney Kinney, who is OF
counsel for the Carter and Annie T. K.
Parker interests, bases his action on the
sensational affidavit hled@by Samuel Par
lker against Mrs. Knight in which charg-
les were made against Mr.. Kinney.
Mr.. Kinney sets forth that he is now
and for many years has been resident
of Honolulu and is duly qualified to prac-
tice law among large and influential
number of citizens and depends upon his
good reputation to continue his practice.
The complaint of Mr.. Kinney gives the
following grounds for claim of libel in
the charges filed by Parker:
/, That on or about the 18th day of
August, the defendant, well knowing
i the premises did r1iaiiciously compose,
print. and publish the following false,
Iscandalous, malicious, libelous and de-
famatory matter of and concerning
plaintiff and in relation to his said pro-
to be circulated throughout the aforesaid
Honolulu:
| THAT not only were said Kinney Ere
! ferring to the plaintiff, William A. Kin
Iney) and Ballou promoters of said en-
lterprise (referring to an enterprise
known as the Harnakua Ditch Co., Ltd
but they acted as attorneys and advisors
of deponent (referring to the defendant
Samuel Parker) and through their adj
vice deponent (referring to said defend
Iant) signed an agreement under which
lit is claimed by the other party to said
agreement that deponent (referring to
lsaid defendant) was and still is liable
Ito said other party in the sum of $780,,
600. That said Kinney (referring to said
plaintif) and Ballou did not become
Iparties to said agreement, taking good
Icare not to make themselves Liable t4lr-
ider the same, making deponent (refer-
firing to said defendant) solely liable,
though they would have benefited joint
lly with deponent (referring to said de-
fendant) Hereunder That the action of
said Kinney (referring to said plaintiff)
and Balou is now attacking this
Ideponent, (referring to said defendant)
and working against his interests. if any
Interest he has in said enterprise (refer-
J
and IN trying to prejudice deponent Gre
ferring to said defendant) under said
agreement IS a gross violation of their
professional duties to deponent (refer-
ring to said defendant) and, as depo-
nent (refeTrlng TO said defendant be-
Ilieves, renders them unfit to practice in
the Courts OF the Territory of Hawaii.
! That said false, scandalous, malicious,
libelous and defamatory matter was
made and puoiished by said defendant
as part of certain affidavit by said
defendant in a certain cause pending
IN the Circuit Court OF the First Circuit
at Chambers in Probate, said cause be-
ing entitled In the Matter of the Guard
ianship of Annie T. K Parker, minor"
which said affidavit defendant caused to
be filed in the court aforesaid, well
knowing that the said affidavit would be
published by the principal newspapers in
Honolulu aforesaid. and also well know
ing that said matter was IN fact false,
scandalous, malicious, libelous and de-
famatory and that the same would IN
jure plaintiff both individually and in
his profession as lawyer; and plaintiff
further alleges that said false, scandal
Gus. malicious. libelous and defamatory
matter had no relation 10 the matter
in regard to which said affidavit OF the
defendant was made nor any relation
to any matter IN the aforesaid cause
and that tie same was made and pub
lished by defendant solely out of spite
and malice towards the plaintiff and
with the intent to injure him both IN
dividus.lly and in his profession as a
lawyer and TO bring him and his name
into public scandal"
1t is said that perhaps another action
similar 10 Mr.. Kinneys may be filed
against Samuel Parker by another of the
attorneys retained by Mrs. Knight
ISLAND REALTY DECISION.
Justice Hatch of the Supreme Court.
Chief Justice Frear and Justice Hart
we'll concurring, handed down a de-
cision yesterday in the case of Cooper
VS.. Island Realty Co. and J. a. Gilman
remanding the case to the Circuit
Court for notification of decree enter
ed and further proceedings in accord
ance with the views therein expressed
The opinion is to the effect that the
decree should be amended by a pro-
vision allowing redemption of the paw
ment of the amount of interest in ar
rears and costs at any time before sale
and upon payment of interest due and
costs the foreclosure proceedings would
then abate.
The decree properly provides a cash
sale. Judicial sales should not be made
on credit unless by consent of the par
ties The contract between the
parties as to sale of lots prior to de-
| fault is matter entirely apart from
the question Of jurisdiction and of au-
thority 10 be exercised by the court by
virtue of its inherent power.
The counsel fee should be dfsalIowed.