The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1905-04-16
MAGOON'S
DEFENCE
He Makes Answer to
Disbarment
Charges.

torney General. charging him with
unprofessional conduct and malpractice.
Respondent denies each and every al
legation charging that he has been
guilty of professional improprieties,
malpractice and gross misconduct but
on the contrary alleges that he has al
ways conducted himself in an honor
able manner in his profession, and with
the utmost loyalty TO his clients
He admits the matter of the Ka-
malo case judgment against Frank
Hustace, John j. Egan and Frank H
Foster for $4,000 in cash and 5000 shares
of Kamalo Company's stock, that he
was one of the attorneys for the plain
tiffs in. that case and that Hustace
paid ST 95f.57 and delivered 52SS shares
of Karnalo paid-up stock on account of
the judgment.
| Respondent denies that on or about
the 14th day of July 1902, or at any
tace retaining fee in the matter of
advising said Hustace how he could es-
cape from full liability of said judg-
ment, as in paragraph " of said in
formation alleged, but on the other
hand brands every word thereof as
utterly false, malicious and untrue.
That as to the amount paid by said
Hustace to respondent of $3.50, respond
ent alleges that the same was paid to
him for a perfectly proper and legiti-
mate purpose. and that when all the
circumstances are considered not only
was the conduct of respondent proper
and legitimate, but involves self-sacri- |
flee on the part of respondent in the ex-
ercise of respondents duties in a !
charitable and humane manner. That !
in all that respondent did in the matter |
he tried to live as nearly as he could |
according to the golden rule DO unto
others as We would that they should
do unto you and respondent denies
that in any act performed by him in
said matter, or in any other matter
during his professional career here of |
nearly twenty years he has been guilty
of any professional misconduct.
AS to the charge of improperly, ere
spondent has to say that if to be merci-
full to ones enemy makes one guilty of
respondent must plead
guilty to this charge. Frank Hustace
was respondents foe in the Kamalo
litigation. He was vanquished and
came pleading to respondents client for
mercy. There was no help for him
from any source except from the Ka-
nalo Sugar Company, respondents
client. In this helpless condition the
brought Hustace to respond
ent, and directed respondent to assist
1im. OF course respondent was not
obliged to follow their instructions, but
he was only too glad to do so if he could
with out prejudicing their rights. That
t was unwise for respondent to have
attempted to in any way relieve Mr.. =
Hustace from his distressing situation,
events have abundantly
proved; but respondent pleads that his
lesire to promote justice blinded his
vision to such an extent to make
aim unable to see that it was the part
IF unwisdom to help his enemy
AS to a triple charge in a certain
paragraph, regarding advice to Hus-
-dCt putting IIllIl vi Tie way lOT ue-
'rauding the Kamalo stockholders. the
Their ere ditors Of HI s ace and The court
Itself, each and every allegation is de-
as wholly false, malicious
md untrue In connection with the
charges he explains that he was acting
LII the time as attorney for the Ka-
nalo Sugar Co, and in pursuance of its A,
Instructions, the scheme the company
approved being to exhaust all recourse
against Egan and Foster before pro- ?
,eeding further against Hustace. :
In this connection "the suggestion ,
vas made by respondent to said Hus- :
ace that nothing could be done for ,
linn so long as he had property stand =
ng in his name subject to be levied on T
Inder execution. and that if he would 2
rive a good and sufficient bond or other .
security that he would :
Jay whatever portion of the judgment f
hould remain unpaid after exhausting 6
he property of Egan and Foster, there 7
would be no objection. so far the 8
Sugar Company was concerned =
o his making a transfer of his property /
% that the Sheriff could find nothing +
N which to levy but that at no time ?
id the matter ever reach a stage where d.,
advised. or could have adj =
Used said Frank Hustace to make such
ransfer. for the reason that Frank ?
Iustace never fulfilled the condition on :
which respondent would have under g,
my possible circumstances advised i
linn to make such a transfer y
Even then he would not have given
he advice had he not been counseled =
hereto by his then partner, z. c. +
Peters, now Deputy Attorney General. r
All Of his actions with Hustace he de- 9
,lares were open and aboveboard and p
he matter was freely discussed with 3
Attorney a. G. NJ. Robertson, counsel e
or Hustace. If Hustace had provided /
he security, it is claimed the ar c
'angement would have been beneficial a
o the Kamalo Sugar Co. Respondent a
contends there was a complete alb t
'enre of the condition of fraud which {
lie has always understood as being t
that in order to commit a fraud on 7