The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1905-05-19
WAS NOT IN
4 MADH0USE
Respondent Masoon on
Witness Stand for
Himself.

ness stand in his own behalf in the
Supreme Court most of yesterday. Be
fore he came on his associate, ]. Light
foot, was cross-examined by S. NJ.
Ballou. prosecutor for Magoon's dis
barment. saNl
The most interesting result of this
process was the admission of the wit
ness that a report of the Kamalo SUI
gar Co.'S affairs to the stockholders,
made by him for Magoon, had dates
that did not coincide with events.
A reference to this mixture Of dates.
when Magoon was concluding his evil
dence in chief, made the respondent
shake with laughter for minute. His
associate questioning him caught the
contagion, and the hilarity of the two
even made the grave faces of the
judges relax in smiles.
Aagoon's evidence was an amplifica-
ton of his answer to the complaint.
Its burden was that at all times he
had a single eye to the interests of
the Kamalo Sugar Co. He declared
he had not accepted the $3.50 fee from
Hustace-he called it "a retainer'-to
represent Hustace in any way against
the Kamalo Sugar Co. in that matter
he acted entirely out of humane feel
ing for Hustace. There as a lot of
work to be done in the plan for reliev-
ing Hustace, together with money to
be expended and he could not afford
the time and expenditure for nothing.
The way his action had been regarded
was apt to make one discouraged in
m in n for
Next time you will take the last
drop of blood, will your" Lightfoot
asked.
mo, 1 wouldn't" was the reply. II
am not built that way"
Were you ever confined in mad
house?"
This question staggered Stenographer
Bell, no doubt from it's seeming weird
irrelevancy. He held up his hand and
asked to have the question repeated
but the respondent did not notice the
signal as he answered:
II ought to be confined in a mad
house If those charges are true"
Previous to this letter from Charles
Hustace Jr., about which oral evidence
had been given, was shown to Magoon
and identified by him. 1t was a pro-
test against the levying of an eXecu-
ton on his brothers property while he
was absent from the Territory.
Before going on the stand Magoon
had offered in evidence a portion Of
the transcript of testimony In the
Dee-Smith quieting title case, but Bal
LOUIS objection that the whole or none
should go in was sustained. At the
close of Magoon's direct examination
the court also sustained an objection
to the admission of a paper signed by
the directors of the Kamalo Sugar Co.,
which was published directly after
Judge Gears decision in the Dee-Smith
case, the gist of which was that. Ma
goon's action with reference to that
case, including the alleged advice to
Hustace, was taken with the full au-
thorization of the directors. The ground
of objection was that the directors were
within the jurisdiction of the court and
should be personally called, If their
doings were to be proved, so that the
prosecution could have the opportunity
of cross-examining them.
Cross examined by Ballou, the re-
spondent said he wanted to obtain the
most humane treatment of Hustace.
There were many friends of Hustace
in the Kamalo company who did not
want him to pay more than his share
of the judgment. He did not know
whether these friend, were assessable
or paid-up shareholders, thought there
were quite a number of assessable
shareholders. A good many of them
had the impression that Hustace was
not liable for more than one-third.
Hustace said the late Paul Neumann
told him he was not liable for more.
Il will not say he (Hustace) said 1t
then" witness explained with refer
ence to an office conference; "he said
it at the trial."
Magoon testified he came into the
Kamalo case as the successor of the
late w. A. Henshall. At that time (oi
final judgmenD there was no one here
to represent the K. S. Co. Davis was
away. Neumann was dead. He thought
Hatch was away. Stewart came in to
represent Davis.
Witness said he protested against
the fees to the attorneys.
Yes, including what was for the
Henshall estate" he said in answer to
a question. He could not say he was
representing the Henshall estate. He
did not have anything to do with act
ing for Henshalrs estate in that.
II still think that fee was unfair,
the respondent volunteered. IT was will
ing to- forego what benefit would get
from that fee for the sake of the Ka-
malo Sugar Co."
Witness did not know whether Frank
Hustace's payment of his third inter-
est included interest or not. He had
theidea that Hustace had paid his full
third of the judgment.
At this stage the court took a short
recess, after which the cross-examina-
ton of the respondent was resumed
The trial was adjourned at p. m. till
10 a. m. today.
HOW THE FEE WENT.
With reference to attorneys fees In
the Kamalo case, Judge Humphreys
decreed the sum OF $4,000 The SUI
preme Court cut it down to $500 and