The Hawaiian gazette., 1905-05-23
BONO ONLY
SUGGESTION
tFrom Saturdays Advertiser.)

case ran from Thursday we'll into yes
terday afternoon. The respondent then
rested and the prosecutor began with
rebuttal.
Before Magoon retired Chief Justice
Frear asked what were the terms of
that bond" referring to the indemnity
bond Frank Hustace was to have given
as alleged
1T never got beyond the stage of a
suggestion" the respondent answered.
Nothing was said about the amount
OF the bond or its items"
Judge Lindsay asked the respondent
IL he was a shareholder of Kamalo SUI
gar Co. and the reply was that he was
not.
On his cross-examination by Ballou
the respondent again claimed that he
was acting for Kamalo Sugar Co. and
not for Hustace, and that the $3.50 Hus-
tace paid was not a retainer but to
cover expenses in the proceedings con-
templated against Egan and Foster.
He might have testified hastily in t!,e
Dee-Sm case that he was acting for
Hustace in an equity suit. 1t was on
ly fair, in his opinion, that II Hustace
wished the Kamalo Sugar Co. to go
further in the matter of a suit against
Egan and Foster he should pay for the
proceedings. He had cautioned Hus-
tace against giving him information
about certain stock holding, as he
might have to levy on the property If
the executions against Egan and
Foster failed.
Magoon was shown where he mem
toned in his brief that his employ
ment' by Hustace had no reference to
the proposed transfer of Hustace's
property and asked to reconcile 1t
with his present denial that he had
been employed" by Hustace. His ex-
PLANTATION was that he had repeated
the facts over and over again, and it
had never been understood that he
represented Hustace even If he acted
Din a manner beneficial to him.
To a string of questions on that
point, the respondent stuck to his
pleadings to the effect that he never
dreamed of allowing Hustace to escape
liability for the whole of the $35 900
judgment against Hustace, Egan and
Foster
Ballou questioned him closely on the
legal phases of the proposed bond, some
questions being overruled. He was
asked If the considerable researches in
his office as testified showed whether
or not bill in equity against Egan
and Foster, to recover the balance of
the judgment, could be maintained IL
Hustace had given bond to secure its
payment. Magoon answered that the
only conclusion he recollected as be-
ing reached was that nothing could
be done against Egan and Foster I'M
til an execution on Hustace's property
was returned unsatisfied.
Then he was asked If the intention
was to have concealed the existence
of the bond from the court in equity.
so that the defense could not be set
up that the plaintiff had an adequate
remedy at law, he answered shortly
that he would have concealed nothing
from the court. The matter anyway
had never been considered. A question
as to what law books were searched
on the question of creditors bill in
equity against Egan and Foster had an
objection to 1t by Whiting sustained.
INEsDC AL
r. A. Douthitt was the first witness
called in rebuttal. AS a stakeholder
and a director of Kamalo Sugar Co
be remembered no meeting at which
1t was ever suggested that execution
against Hustace should be stayed I'M
til creditors bill against Egan and
Foster could be brought. Their idea
was that Hustace had been honest in
paying his share, about sl2 OOO of the
judgment. This caused much SYM
pathy for him, but their idea was to
get the amount of the judgment any
way. His own statement at the time
TO the directors was that nothing could
be done until bill in equity was
brought to set aside the conveyance by
Hustace TO Smith.
Magoon questioned witness about
feeling" at meetings of directors
against making Hustace pay the whole
judgment.
Yes. there was feeling expressed"
Douthitt answered with emphasis on
expressed which caused a laugh.
Then he continued. Nothing was said
at the time that we were to waive any
- SNA i'6A'eSi Jul biit idtd was mat
Egan and Foster ought to be made to
pay their shares"
II. r. Hitchcock testified he was a
director of X. S. Co. at the time the
Kamalo suit was started; had been a
director from the companys start I'M
til August l, 1903. Magoon was a por-
tion of that time acting as attorney
for the company. He did not know
that Magoon ever accepted a fee from
Frank Hustace in any matter connect
ed with the Kamalo Sugar Co.
In cross-examination by Magoon he
did not remember that it was ever
talked of in business meetings of the
directors that execution should be
levied on Egan and Fosters property
before going after Hustace. That was
the feeling. He personally felt that it
would be hard on Hustace to follow
him up after he had paid about s12,-
900, but he did not think he ever went
so far as to suggest that Hustace
should be excused altogether from pay.
ing any more. He heard about execu-
tons on Fosters property in Pauoa
valley ThOuph ha tbnuoht