The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1905-04-15
MAGOON'S answer
lContlnued from % %.


Of advising said Hustace how he could
escape from fun liability on said judg-
ment as I'm paragraph " Of said in
formation alleged, but on the other
hand brands every word thereof as
utterly false, malicious and untrue.
That as TO the amount paid by said
Hustace to respondent OF $3.50, respOn-
dent alleges that the same was paid
to him for a perfectly propeg and le-
Ultimate purpose, and that when all
the circumstances are considered not
only was the conduct Of respondent
proper and legitimate, but involved
self-sacrifice on the part OF respondent
I'm the exercise Of respondents duties
in a charitable and humane manner.
That I'm all that respondent did IN the
matter he tried to live as nearly as he
could according to the golden rule DO
unto others as ye would that they
should do unto you and respondent
denies that I'm any act performed by
him in said matter, or in any other
matter during his professional career
| here of nearly twenty years he has
been guilty Of any professional miscon-
! duct. -.@
That as to the charge Of impro-
/ priety contained i'm said paragraph "
! respondent has to say that II to be
merciful TO ones enemy makes one
| guilty of improperly, respondent must
plead guilty to this charge. Frank
Hustace was respondents foe in the
J Kamalo litigation. He was vanquish-
ed and came pleading to respondents
client for mercy. There was no help
for him from any source except from
the Kamalo Sugar Company, respon-
dents client. In this helpless condi-
ton the company brought Hustace to
respondent and directed respondent to
assist him. OF course respondent was
not obliged to follow their instructions
but he was only too glad to do so II he
could without prejudicing their rights
That II was unwise for respondent tC
have attempted to I'm any way relieve
} Mr.. Hustace from his distressing situa-
} tion subsequent events have abundant.
ly proved, but respondent pleads thai
his desire to promote Justice blinded his
vision to such an extent as to make
him unable to see that II was the par
Of unwisdom TO help his enemy.
THAT as to the triple charge con
tanned I'm paragraph V OF said informa'
ton that respondent advised said Hus
tace to make deed Of all his propert!
to some third person without adequate
consideration therefor, thereby dis
posing Of his assets, hindering, delay
ing and defrauding first, the stock
holders Of the Kamalo Sugar Company
second, the other creditors Of said Hus
j tace, and third, that such deed woul,
) be fraud upon the court, responder
3 says that each and eVsry allegation
{ thereof and each and every allegation
! contained in said paragraph V
] wholly false, malicious and untrue.
e 1T is rather remarkable that 1t
. left to our day 10 say that a lawye
J may not make use of any method
! whatever known to the law for tn
r. benefit Of his client without bein
p charged with malpractice, All sue
z actions must eventually be subjected
} the test of whether or not the cour
approves Of them, and the only punish
ment that any attorney can receive
for the court to say that il will no
, sustain what he has done that, It
] submitted, Is the province of the court
All that respondent has done or eve
Intended to do would, or necessity, hay
to stand the test as to whether or nc