The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1905-04-16

signed by David Dayton, L. H. Dee,
T. K. Clarke, D. H. Lewis and E. Nc
Phetridge, representing Kamalo Sugar
Co, among other things saying: Tn
approving of the plan suggested for
| the protection of Mr.. Hustace we did
not in any way connive at an attempt
on the part of Hustace to prevent re-
covery of the judgment, but were ac
tuated by a sense of justice and
desire that Egan and Foster should be
made to disgorge their share of the
pIundered funds of the Kamalo Su-
gar Company, Limited"
Several closely typed pages are TAX
, en- up with pleading, backed by an
cient and modern authorities, against
such a strict construction of the rules
of practice as would prevent a lawyer
from doing the best he could for his
clients. He quotes Justice Hartwen of
the present Hawaiian bench as holding
there was nothing improper in an ap-
peal for delay. The following refer
ence is made to respondents ,prosecu-
tor:
ION the question of difference of
opinion respondent is reminded of
time not long ago when prosecutor
Ballou was sentenced to imprisonment
for contempt of court no doubt to the
Judge who imposed the sentence it was
perfectly proper and right. To Mr..
Ballou it was nothing short of an a
trocious violation of his constitutional
rights, and the solemn sentence of the
Court was nullified by the Acting Gov
ernor of the Territory before Mr. Bal
lou had even entered into the shadow
of the prison wall. If the Acting Gov
ernor had been of the same opinion
as the Judge. Mr.. Ballou would have
languished in jail for thirty days.
Either the Judge was right or the Act
ing Governor was right. This is on
ly cited as an illustration to show
that there always was and always will
be in very many merely prohibitive
matters difference of opinion as to
what is right and what is wrong
Respondent says the deeds made by
Hustace We're drawn by a. A. Wilder,
now a justice of the Supreme Court.
and to charge that they We're made in
pursuance of respondents advice is to
charge Robertson & Wilder with a
criminal conspiracy-first to rob Ka-
malo Sugar Company, and, second, to
connive with their client Hustace
against their clients Egan and Foster.
Not only would such conduct" he
proceeds to say. render respondent un-
fit to practice law, as also said Robert
son, but it would result in the impeach-
ment of said Justice Wilder. Let Rob-
ertson e Wilder speak for themselves.
but as for respondent the utter reck-
lessness of the charge against him in
this respect is so plainly false and I'M
nv Iaa.
respondent is utterly unable to con-
ceive how it could have been made"
In the Dee-Smith case. nothing ap-
peared from either side with reference
to respondent, and if he had not ap-
pealed from the decision of Judge Gear,
in all probability the whole matter
would have gone unnoticed.
Hustace's retainer of $3.50 to cover the
costs of s74 in two suits was so small
that it cannot be urged that there was
much selfshness in respondents con-
duct: but when It is considered that
loss would be more than
$3.50. even though Hustace should
eventually pay the entire judgment, and
be many times that much in case the
company should not recover judgment
at all to charge that respondent was
acting from a personal and selfish mo-
tive. degenerates into malice and perse-
cution.' Respondent calls attention to
the fact that the things charged hap
pened three years ago, stating in this
connection that there has recently been
enacted a statute in this Territory pre-
venting the punishment of certain
crimes after the lapse OF two years
He speaks Of great reforrners having