The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1905-10-21
ANSWER Of
HUMPHREYS
lie Denies, but Fails
TO Swear to Ills
Statement.

A. S. Humphreys tells his side of the
story in an answer filed yesterday to
the complaint of John W. E. Laker,
second engineer of the cable ship Re
storer, claiming $4,000 damages of
him, on account of false prosecution
and personal abuse.
The answer of Humphreys is not YER
flied by oath, as was the complaint of
Laker.
Defendant says he was employed
about September Is by plaintiff, at the
instance of j. j. Dunno, attorney, in a
certain matter, Mr.. Dunno stating that
defendant IS charge would be $3.50,
which sum plaintiff subsequently stated
to defendant he was agreeable to pay.
He accepted the employment. "The
matter with respect to which defendant
was employed involved an exhaustive
and careful consideration of the treaty
between the United States and Great
Britain, the statutes of the United
States and the decisions of the Federal
COURTS
At the appointed time plaintiff came
to defendants office to receive his
opinion, and as it was adverse to the
wishes, hopes and prospects of plain
tiff, defendant voluntarily reduced his
charge to $25.'' Plaintiff left the of
fee abruptly, saying, "Send the bill
over to the ship at the end of the
month. - Defendant at once wrote a
letter to plaintiff "upbraiding him for
his conduct and demanding the imme-
date settlement of his account, to
which letter the plaintiff made no re-
ply"
Several days later defendant CHANGED
to meet plaintiff at tie Haleiwa hotel,
Waialua, and brought suit against
him before the District Magistrate of
Waialua for 500, (Which defendant
then believed and now AYERS was a
proper and reasonable charge for his
services in the premises. - The con-
clusion of the answer, relating to the
graver portion of Laker IS complaint,
is as follows:
"The suit was FLED at IL clock in
the forenoon, but was not served until
about O CLOCK in the evening, for the
reason that no official having authority
to serve legal process was in the dis
trict of Waialua, all of them being in
Honolulu as witnesses in a case pend
ing in the Circuit Court, and none of
said officials returned to Waialua, I'M
til very late hour in the afternoon
l.
hands of the deputy sheriff until about
O'Clock in the evening. When the
suit was fled defendant did not know
that the Engineers Association of Ha-
waii intended to have a dinner at the
Haleiwa hotel that evening, nor did de-
PENDANT know that plaintiff was In any
way connected with that association,
nor indeed that there was any such as
ISOLATION, nor did defendant know that
plaintiff had any lady or ladies at the
hotel as his guests, or under his care,
charge or protection. Defendant did
not instigate or direct the officer hav-
ing the summons to serve plaintiff
while he was dining; on the contrary,
defendant expressly instructed the Of
fcer not to do so.
"And defendant AYERS that the Off
Ger did not call plaintiff from the din
ing table to serve him, but served him
after he had left the table for tenn
porary and necessary purpose. Defend
ant denies that in instituting said suit,
or in doing anything in connection
Herewith, he was moved by malice to-
wards plaintiff. On the other hand he
charges that the suit was a reasonable
and proper means of collecting just
debt, before court having jurisdiction
and which plaintiff had refused to pay
but which he has since paid.
And the defendant denies each and
every allegation in the complaint not
hereinbefore denied, and demands d
trial nv iury -