The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1905-06-02
MAGOON IS
FOUND GUILTY


that have done. hu uaE.I of IIue-
tare was $50 retainer out Uf which B I
would be Obliged Zoo advance costs. This I
boo freely paid. a moderate retainer i
alone would have been $500. and The .
work ] did amounted to more than the .
1850 which / received And boo his F.
answer the respondent relies upon and /
sets forth what he considers rltihOa- /
tion of his acts signed by the directors .
Of the company iu which the latter /
say. among other things I'VE therefore
heartily approved of the suggest ons .
made by Mr. Dee that proceedings
should be attempted against Egan ana /
Foster, and 10 was perfectly agreeable /
to us that }, Alfred Magoou should act /
as attorney for Mr. Hustace with the |
above end Ia view, provided Mr.. Hus- /
tace should see fl to employ him. This ]
document was apparently prepared n I
Mr.. Magoons Office and was taken /
around to the directors for their sigma /
| ture by Mr.. Lightfoot of Mr.. Magoon's
| office. The retainer was recently re-
| turned by the respondent to Mr. Hus-
/ tace,
THE fact that the suits were to be
! brought i'm the name of the company
! does not show that respondent was not
! retained by Hustace any more than the
fact that the retainer was paid by Hus-
tace would necessarily show that he
was retained by Hustace.
IF the relation of attorney and client
was created between the respondent and
Hustace, was it a matter in which the
inf Of D.,
pany and Hustsce were adverse? The
retainer was paid for the institution of
suits by the Kamalo Sugar Company
against Egan and Foster for the pur-
pose Of relieving Hustace from further
payments in so far as payments could
be compelled from Egan and Foster.
If the bringing of such suits for the
purpose Of enforcing payments from
Egan and Foster, or even for the pur-
pose also of relieving Hustace thereby,
had been the sole object of the re
tainer, there would have been no i'm
prOprety in accepting it, for to that
extent the interest of the Kamalo Sugar
Company and Hustace were not adj
verse. But that was not the sole OBJ
jedt, 1t could not very well have been
the sole object in fact and was not the
sole object contemplated as shown by
the testimony OF all the witnesses The
= proposition contained by implication
I the postpunement of further proceed
{ ! ings against Hustace FOR & time at
S least. If the respondent was the at
Y tOrney of the company alone he coulC
D properly have proceeded at any tim,
against Hustace upon instructions e
do so from the company, u0tWithstand
q ing the institution or prosecution o
the suits against Egan and Foster. Bu
il he was % ttorney for HustaCe as wei
under a retainer given by Hustace 70
The very purpose Of relieving him S
far as possible from further payment
and for proceeding against Egan an,
- Foster solely for that purpose, h cCu
y moi properly proceed upon instruction.
: from his client the company against hi
client Hustace until proceedings h.
| first been taken against Igan and Eos
ter That the interests of the tw,
;, clients were adverse to "A certain ext IN
was very soon shown by the subsequen
developments above SET forth. The fact
, If II WAS fact, that the responder
acted i'm this dual capacity by the con
n sent 'of both clients would not make i
right Tor him to do so although it would
n be mitigating circumstance to be con
O sidered in determining the amount 0
y the penalty.
I'm our opinion the relation of at
y torney and client was created between
the respondent and Hustace i'm mat
&c ter In which "A similar relation existe,
It between the respondent and the Ka
t, malo Sugar Company and in which tn
a. interests of the two clients, the com
n pany and Hustace, were adverse Blu
IT such relationship between the respon
i dent and Hustace was of a very loos
/, character. The respondent was re
5. garded by all as primarily at least tn
attorney for the company. TIT
n respondent supposed that he was do
ing only what was proper and with III
consent of his client the company Blu
81 he should have known better.
n The respondent is found guilty o
If professional improperly and miscon
a duct, but in view of all the circum
p. stances it is deemed sufficient to severe
e ly censure him and require him to pa!
l. the costs Of this preceding, and it is $,
i ordered
i IS. NJ Ballou, deputy attorney gen
i eral, for the prosecution.
e Respondent in person: ]. Lightfoo
Il and w. A Whiting with him.
IT by the Court,
n GEORGE LUCAS,
Clerk"