The Hawaiian gazette., 1906-06-26
MILLS is
D|SBARRED
(From Saturdays Advertiser)

law in Kona, Island OF Hawaii. an,
acted as a notary public, was disbarre
. from practice in all courts of the is
lands yesterday afternoon by the su
preme Court. Without rising from tn
bench, and after short consultation
Chief Justice Frear gave the order TO
disbarment Mr.. Mills is not only dis
barred from practicing law. but hi,
commission as notary public is can.
celed.
with the consent OF his confreres
justices Hartwell and Wilder, Chief
Justice Frear said:
The judgment of the court is that
the respondent Harry T. Mills be dis.
barred and that his name be stricken
from the roll of attorneys and counsel
lors in all of the courts of the Terri
tory of Hawaii"
In brief the disbarment followed the
presentation of the matter by Deputy
Attorney General Prosser and respond-
ents attorney, C. w. Ashford, and the
reasons for the action of the court were
about as follows:
That his conduct as a whole indicat-
ed that he had shown a want of integ-
rity and a lack of appreciation and n
disregard of the obligations of his Off
ciai duty and showed him unfit to act
as an official of the courts and unwor-
thy of public confidence. The specific
facts leading up to the disbarment were
about as follows:
After obtaining signatures to a peti-
tion for license for a Chinaman, he
changed the name of the licensee with
out the knowledge and consent of some
of the signers, as an attorney.
As a notary public Mills added cer-
tificate of acknowledgment saying that
all the signers acknowledged the in
strument on July. l, 1905, and that they
were all proven to him by one Kaili-
niakule, who was sworn for that pur-
pose, The fact was that some did not
appear before Mills to acknowledge the
instrument at all and some of those
who had acknowledged 1t. did SO on
different days, and Kailimakule was
not sworn to identify alr of them.
CORPORATION EXHIBITS CASE.
The Supreme Court yesterday decided
the corporation exhibit case brought by
The Merchants Association against the
Territory, in favor of the merchants.
The case was brought before the Su-
creme Court to test the validity of the
aw to determine whether all corpor-
atoms could be forced under penalty
% lille exhibits with the Territorial
Treasurer. The proceedings were
brought under the title of the Territory
IS. Geo. w. Smith ct al, stockholders
IF Benson, Smith & Co., Ltd, drug
yists. In the district court the defend
lnts were found guilty and on appeal
he case was then carried quickly be-
ore the Supreme Court. Justice Will
Ter writes the opinion as follows:
In order that defendants be guilty
hey must have made a. a false state
nent or overcalculation of property in
IN affidavit, return, statement or cer-
ficate of stock, or (2) have done busi-
less as a corporation or held them
elves out to be>a corporation without
laving complied with the provisions
# law. AS defendants are not charged
With making either a false statement or
IN generalization of property, they
must come within the second classifica-
ion or not at all. Even If defendants
AVE done business as corporation and
Ield themselves out to be a corpora
ion, what provision of law have they
1t is neither charged nor
laimed that any provision of law pre-
equisite to the formation of corpora
ion has been violated, but it is claimed
hat the defendants violated the re-
uirement that corporation shall an
f,,1l nd 20
ibit of the state of it's affairs to the
Treasurer The difficulty with that
lain is that the statute requires the
orporation and only the corporation to
resent such an exhibit. In brief, de-
endants We're charged with, and found
,uilty of, not filing something which
hey are not but the corporation is, re-
uired to file. Defendants could as
veil be charged with, and found guilty
f., n misdemeanor in case Benson,
smith & Co., Ltd, issued bills or other
vidences of debt for circulation as
money, which by Section 1850, II. L.,
can not do.
'The Judgment appealed from is re-
-ersed and the defendants are dis
harged."
+. c. Peters, Attorney General, for
he Territory; r. w. Breckons and 5.
;. Kngsbury for defendants.
TRANSIT GAINS POINT.
The Supreme Court yesterday decided
n favor of the defendant I'm the action
or damages of John bingham VS.. The
Rapid Transit Co. That is,
he verdict of $4,000 damages in the trial
ourt was set aside and the case re-
handed to the trial court for new pro-
eodings. bingham sued for damages
or injuries alleged to have been re-
eived by being thrown off a car ON
lay Z, 1905, The principal grounds OF
ppeal were that the verdict was eN-
essive. The decision of the court,
made by Chief Justice Frear, is as fol-
Dws:
ION the facts as the jury found them
he plaintift was entitled 10 verdict
mr. very substantial damages. The
iror committed by the ruling OF the
ourt could AFFECT only the amount OF
he verdict. II the error were one of
damages, We should give the
laintin the privilege ~ avoiding
.ttr fYtlI lN rYutIfttutr IA n.rfian az fH.