Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1905-04-15

not very seriously considered by re-.
spondent for the reason that respond
ent could not entertain the proposition
at all until satisfactory arrangements
had been made to secure the Kamalo
Sugar Company judgment. Respond
ent felt that IL there was any way that
could legally be adopted to oblige Egan
and Foster to pay their share of this
Judgment 1t ought to be pursued and
for this purpose respondent was will
ing to go as far as the law would per
nit and no further.
There was no intention to in any
way deceive The court.
Respondent cares not how much the
court may differ from him in the
course he ought to pursue In any Civ.
en- case. In that matter he is response
lie to his client.
Methods Of Procedure.
Lawyers will always differ as to prop.
or methods Of procedure. Only the
other day respondent heard Mr.Justice
Bartwell make the statement in open
court, from the Bench, that to his
mind there was nothing improper In
an appeal for delay. That an attorney
Lad the right to take advantage of
such an appeal for the benefit of his
client. Yet, appealing for delay under
Section 1866 of the Revised Laws Of
Hawaii Il attended with payment OF
double costs and interest at nine per
cent on the amount of the Judgment
Ballou's Contempt.
On the question of difference OF opin.
ion respondent is reminded OF time
lot long ago when prosecutor Ballou
vas sentenced to Imprisonment for con.
'empt OF court. no doubt TO the Judge
Sho imposed the sentence II was per.
'ectly proper and right To Mr.. Ballou
It was nothing short of an attrocious
violation of his constitutional rights,
and the solemn sentence of the court
was nullified by the Acting Governor
OF the Territory before Mr. Ballou had
even entered into the shadow of the
prison wall. II the Acting Governor
Lad been Of the same opinion as the
Judge. Mr.. Ballou would have Ian.
Guished in Jail for thirty days. Either
the Judge was right or the Acting Gov.
crnor was right. This Is only cited as
an Illustration to show that there al
ways was and always will be in very
many matters merely prohibitive diff.
ference Of opinion as to what is right
and what Is wrong.
This respondent does not wish to
Re understood as sanctioning the ap.
rearance by an attorney on both sides
OF case, or for both parties in one
Issue. nor does he wish to he under.
stood as sanctiOning the conveyance of
property to defraud creditors. He be-
li'ves such conduct cannot be too
strongly condemned. and respondent
wishes II to be just as positively under
stood that II was just as far from re.
Spondent's mind to commit any of
these acts as II is At the present mo.
Lient from the mind of the court to
commit the same.
That as to the charge that the con.
vcyancc alleged to have been advised
by respondent was. or would have been
a fraud upon the court, respondent,
while denying that he ever did any.
thing more than to suggest that such a
conveyance could be made, and would
he agreeable to the Kamalo Sugar Com.
pany provided adequate security were
SVEN to pay the balance of the IA.
malo judgment that should remain UNI
paid after the property OF Egan and
Foster had been exhausted. claims that
he had, under such conditions, adyis.
cd such a deed, acting under the di.
lection OF his client, he could not by
any possibility have been guilty of
fraud upon the court. Respondent ar.
sued. first, that as Hustace had paid
his share OF the judgment he should
not DO called upon TO pay the balance
except so much thereof as could not
lie obtained from Egan and Foster, for
II he paid any more he would not have
any legal, right TO compel Egan and
Foster to refund to him the part thus
paid; as there was but little, II any
property in sight of Egan and Foster,
which could he levied upon, and IL was
believed that they had property which
they had surreptitiously disposed of,
they would not be heard by the court
10 say. after Hustace had paid his one
Third Of the judgment and they had
paid nothing at all, that Hustace had
conveyed away his property to enable
the KamalO Sugar Company TO come
onto them. That would be the case OF
permitting them to conceal themselves
behind their fraudulent transfers be
cause Hustace had merely put the lega
title Of his land out of himself will
no fraudulent intent, sbut only to re
move the obstacle which prevented tn,
hamalO Sugar Company from attack
ing their fraudulent transfers.
That the allegations by lnnucnd,
that Hustace made deeds Of his prop
Crty, one 10 w. II, Smith and one I,
Charles llustaco. Jr,, In pursuance o
the plan suggested by respondent, \,
that the Kamalo Sugar Company coull
lriug an action AGAINST Egan and Eos