The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1905-10-20
A, S, HUMPHREYS
SUED BY CLIENT
FOR MISCONDUCT
A Cable Ship Officer Claims $4,000 Damages
of the Former Judge for False Action
and Abusive Conduct.

Former Judge Humphreys is up
practitioner if Second Engineer Laker,
of the cable ship Restorer makes good
his charges against him in the rela-
tions of attorney and client.
An action for $4,000 damages has
been brought against a. S. Humphreys,
attorney at law, by John w. E. Laker,
a recent client of defendant. Henry E.
Highton is attorney for complainant in
this damage suit. The cause of action
alleged is malicious civil prosecution
IN the District Court of Waialua.
From the complaint, fled yesterday for
the September term of the First Circuit
Court, the following allegations are
condensed:
Plaintiff is the second engineer of
the cable ship Restorer, now and since
April "A, 1905, in the port OF Honolulu.
He is also a member of the Honolulu
Engineering Association.
On September 18 Laker sought the
advice of Humphreys on point of law,
and the following day Humphreys oral
ly gave to him his opinion on the ques-
tion submitted. The agreed charge was
twenty-fiv dollars, which I4aker prom
ised to pay the attorney 'at the COM
mencement of the month of October.
A D. 19G5''
On September 30 the defendant COM
h. To-,
in the District Court of Waialua, to re-
cover the sum of one hundred dollars
for the professional services aforesaid,
on which date District Magistrate A. 8.
Mahaulu issued summons to this
plaintiff.
Malieiously and without reasonable
or probable cause the defendant in
structed the magistrate to place the
summons in the hands of the Deputy
Sheriff of Waia1ua for service, which
was done and that officer duly served
the summons. By reason of such serv-
ice the plaintiff was compelled to en- |
ploy an attorney to represent him in
the action, who duly appeared in the |
Magistrates court at half-past one
o clock on October 2. The plaintiff, I
did not appear either per
sonally or by attorney, and the action
was in open court dismissed.
By reason of that action the plaintiff
was put to the expense of a journey
from Waialua to Honolulu and return,
also that of his attorneys journey to
Waialua from Honolulu. Including the
attorney g fee of $40 paid, the ex
penses IN question amounted to about
S27.40.
.eTo establish express and actual ]
malice by the defendant Humphreys,
and ''to lay the foundation for the
recovery of exemplary and Corr punl- {
tive damages in this action,' Laker
further AYERS:
""That on said September Both, A. D. I
1903, the said plaintiff, as the said de- /
aforesaid, temporarily, and stopping at t
,he Haleiwa Hotel at said place; that /
n fact the said plaintiff was there,
With two ladies of Honolulu aforesaid, !
he wife and daughter of one of his
friends, who We're his guests, and In
ended to remain at the said hotel,
With his said guests, until the follow
no Tuesday, October Sd, A. D. 1905;
hat the said plaintiff was also at said
to attend the semi-annual
inner OF the Honolulu Engineering AS
ociation, of which he was and is
lember, held on the evening OF said
september 30th, A. D. 1905, at SAID II
faleiwa Hotel; that, during the day il
ast aforesaid, preceding and in connec- 81
ion with the action aforesaid, on the +,
anal of said hotel, and in the immed1-
te vicinity thereof, the said defendant =
ddressed to the said plaintiff various o.
nsulting expressions, such as dead o.
eat and blackguard, and also pro- Sc
ane expressions in a loud tone and w
ngry manner, and when the said plain NJ
fl tried to withdraw from the pres
nee of said defendant, followed him
round the said lanai, threatened him
ith physical violence and also threat
ned TO have him arrested and caused III
lie said ladies, his guests as aforesaid, he
believe that he would be arrested, IF
ld said that he would shame the said
aintiff before the said ladies, and de-
yed the service of summons IN SAID III
'tlOn, until after the salu plaintiff was Ge
ated at the dinner-table, mem Is
er of said Honolulu Engineering AS ca
'ciation as aforesaid; that all and Tt
ngular the language and conduct lie
.oresaid of the said defendant, in this in!
sragraph averred, were causeless, av
sston and malicious, based on an as ag
med doubt as to whether the SAID Ki