The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1905-04-21
ATTACKS WITHOUT
WARN NC


and Humphreys had been substituted
The court took recess after disposinE
Of the matter until ten O'Clock, when
the Lugan trial began. In the mean-
time both attorneys and the attorney
general called upon DE Bolt with re-
ference TO the case 10 was currently
reported that DE Bolt intended to set
aside the verdict Of guilty IN An On's
case, owing TO the actions Of Davis IN
the trial, which An on is understood 60
have sworn was prejudicial to his case.
Andrews, who was waiting 10 see De
Bolt, was the closest witness Of the
encounter. Judge DE Bolt, Bailih
Hopkins and Clerk p. d. KeHett, were
also close witnesses.
Davis had been standing about the
Judiciary building for some time, ana
IL was reported that he was looking
for Humphreys
AS Humphreys was finishing a COM
ference with Judge DE Bolt Davis stuck
his head i'm the door, apparently also
wanting to see the judge. Andrews
was standing clos by on the same err
| rand. He wanted TO protest against
the granting Of "a new trial AS Hum
phreys left the room Davis also walked
up the corridor. He suddenly shouted
There's the man who insulted me-
and struck the eX-judge. The blow
apparently landed on the side of the
neck and jaw and It had weigh enough
| to send Humphreys down. Hopkins
and Andrews rushed forward and the
! former got hold Of Davis and held him
. from continuing his attack. Kellet
| also held him. Judge De Bolt and
many others rushed to the scene. Da-
Wis continued to demand that he be al
! lowed to get at Humphreys. The lat
! ter made the statement that Davis had
struck him when he was not looking,
and asked the clerks in the court room
| If they had Witnessed the assault Later
both left the building.
Humphreys stated after the diff
! Guilty that his relations with Davis had
/ become strained recently as a result Of
| the final conclusion Of the Sumner dis
/ barment matter. Mr. Davis met me
| I'm the police court and stated that the
/ final result Of his efforts i'm the dsbar-
ment matter had been for my benefit
as well as for Mr.. Thompson, and he
! suggested that l pay one-third of his
expenses Of 81, 900, for his trip to Wash
/ ington. | gave him to understand that
d d not consider that ! should pay
any of his expenses. Later l received
from him the following letter:
Honolulu, T. H., March 9, 1905.
"Ex-Judge Humphreys. Dear Sir
Frank has signihed his willingness to
bear part Of the expense of my fight
against disbarment, he will pay today.
Will you stand $685. Of the same?
/ Il expended a large sum but the $1,000
l borrowed on mortgage and it is blood
money. If you can't help me now,
when will you, and when you can send
me a cheque if you think you should
not aid don't, / will not be offended
whatever you do in -ne premises, do 1t
so freely and voluntarily that our rela-
tons will continue to be friendly Tor !
don't want help at the expense of
stralning our relations. You was bepe-
fitted, so | know you will help.
DAVIS"
II had already expressed my views,
but when l received this letter by spe-
cial delivery, ! wrote a reply as follows:
mr.. George A. Davis, Honolulu.
Dear Sir: have your favor of the 9Th
inst, and beg to say that / must, and
do hereby, decline to bear any part OF
the expense of your fight against dis
barment, The proceedings taken by
you subsequent to your dsbarment by
the Supreme Court of Hawaii, were
taken entirely upon your own initiative,
without any consultation with me, or
without the slightest intmatlOn to me
of the course which you intended to pur-
sue. You kept your own counsel in this
regard, and excluded me absolutely
from your confidence. The result Of the
hearing which you secured in the Fed
eral Court I'm Honolulu, was, and is, I'm
my judgment, a practical Vindication
of the Supreme Court OF Hawaii i'm the
disbarment proceedings against you,
the only difference between the two
Judgments being I'm the quantum Of
punishment, which, after all, is mat
ter of discretion entirely. But even
conceding that the entire net result Of
your efforts to wipe out the stigma OF
the judgment OF disbarment against
you, pronounced by the Supreme Court
Of Hawaii, is TO your credit ! yet fail
to see how the matter concerns me in
the slightest as the complaint I'm the
disbarment proceeding, and the judg-
ment pronounced thereon, in your case,
and in my case, We're based upon an
entirely separate and distinct catagoyy
of facts. l feel compelled to be thus
frank with you, I'm as much as you have
approached me in regard to the subject
matter Of this letter on three different
occasions. I now beg that you regard
the present expressions Of opinion as
( final and irrevocable Yours faithfully,
"A. S. HUMPHREYS"
after receiving this letter Mr.. Davis
appeared TO take IT in good part, but
after a day had, passed he suddenly
! ceased speaking to me, and we have
not spoken since.
IN the All on matter tried to avoid
taking part, but the pressure brought