Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1904-01-20
FULL JUSTICE NOT DONE
SAYS JUSTICE GALBRAITH
IN THE DISBARMENT CASES

The Supreme Court rendered anoth.
er majority decision yesterday after.
noon denying the petition OF Attorney
! George A. Davis for rehearing. Asso
ciate Justice Perry writes the decision
in which Chief Justice Frear concurs
Justice Galbraith makes vigorous dis.
sent.
The syllabus Of the majority decision
says:
The rendering Of previous judg-
ment held not to disqualify a Judge
because such Judgment was rendered
in another case and upon question
mot involved In the case In which the
objection of disqualification is present.
ed.
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-
lney.
| Upon the facts stated in the opinion
a Judge of the court held not to be dis
qualified by reason of interest as al
ileged
A rehearing will not be granted on the
ground that the Chief Justice OF this
Court not called at the trial. is a nee
essary and material witness. no init
nation having been given at or before
the trial that the proposed witness
could give any testimony or as to what
testimony. IL any, he could give, IL
called, and no desire having been ex-
pressed that he testify and no intima-
ltion being even now given as to what
he could testify to-; or In disbarment
lease, on the ground that the party sup
lposed to be aggrieved by the miscon-
duct OF the attorney was not called by
the Attorney General as a witness: or
on the ground that necessary and
material witness was absent from the
Jurisdiction at the time of the trial,
where no showing Is made as to what
his testimony would be. II called, and
where, in submitting the case to the
Court for decision. the party now ask
ling for the rehearing expressly said
that ne would not call the witness but
would close without his testimony.
In n disbarment case no complaint by
the party supposed to he aggrieyed is
necessary An information NAV In
lsucb case T.. filed he the Attorney Gen.
eral
Ratification. n any Inv n client n,
Iother marty most interested OF miscon
lduct or an attorney. does not hind IN,
Court or affect its duty in a proceedius
for disbarnent
lin disbarment case II "a not n defens,
THAT Mt the time of the alleged miscon
lduct the attorney was n District Mag
listrate.
, l1bis Court may in A proper case dis
bar an attorney whose license was orig
finally granted by the Supreme Cour
: lof the Republic of Hawaii, and WHIT
, since the organic Act took effect ha,
mot received a new license from thi,
Court or taken the oath prescribed b,
ISection 10 of the Organic Act.
The majority decision. written b,
l,Justice Perry, say in part, after recit
ling the grounds of the appeal:
lp,, o,,.,,a.,.,,,
Eirs, in natmroI order arc tho sug
csstions ~ aisouoIiacat;on n, mem
lhsr. Of ,his cur, Tho, tho uric
ltad nr,or 20 ,hoso ,rocoed,r.s no Cir
cui, Iraya ,,ssod mon tho ,uest,o
or u S,mner.s sanity ala not dis
,uaI,,,, him ,s ma,,or q, Iou, ,or tho
previous judgment was not rendere
lii. this case: nor is this an appeal O
new trial In that case. The proyisio
lot the Organic Act is, Section 81, tina
l"no Judge shall sit on an appeal, @
new trial In any case, In which he ma
: have given a previous Judgment" TIL
lquestion of whether or not Sumner wa
insane within the meaning OF our sta,
ute on guardianship, was not even
tissue In this case, nor was It passe
upon. On the subject Of bias and pr,
ljudice, the only fact stated in suppo
o. the contention Is that on three di