The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1907-09-30

ne was lOnofed Dy SeVeEai app0intlV
positions, among others being appoint
ed to sit on the bench of the Suprem
Court of the Territory of Hawaii b
special appointment in certain case.
by the Chief Justice of the Territor
j of Hawaii, Walter F. Frear, now Gov
error of said Territory, and that re
spondent further took an active inter
est in political and public affairs an
that during his whole career in sal
Hawaii he never has been charged o
accused with any personal or profes
! sional misconduct whatsoever. An,
respondent attaches hereto and make
a part of his answer, copies of letter
addressed to this court and now on fl
herein from Congressman. judges. of
ficials and prominent men of affair;
in Washington. d. c.. New York Cit.
| and the Territory of Hawaii express
/ ing their confidence and esteem for re
spofrdent.
In November. 1905, respondent re-
signed the Attorney GeneraIsfip OF tbs
Territory OF Hawaii and came te
Shanghai to practise his profession and
| associated himself with Francis M
Brooks. an Attorney and Counsellor
OK 111Wf well AI10AA 10 IeSpO6AGuI anu
of good repute. That he was imTne-
diately upon his arrival admitted to
the United States Consular Court al
Shanghai and since that time has prac-
tised his profession in Shanghai hon-
estly, fearlesslys and to the best OF
ability, and he submits copies of let
tiers filed in this court in December,
1906, from Shanghai business men and
merchants, which copies he attaches to
this answer and makes a part thereof,
as to his standing and reputation in
this community. And respondent be-
lieves and claims that he has a good
reputation for honesty and truthful-
ness in this community.
4th. And respondent further answer
ing said citation admits that he signed
a petition for a writ or habeas corpus
in the case of S. r. Price In the city
Of San Francisco, State of California,
and alleges that everything stated in
said petition Is true to the best of re-
spondent's knowledge and belief. Re-
spondent further insists that in pro-
ceedings of this kind, especially where
in this case he is charged personally
by the Judge, who intends to try the
case, with moral turpitude," he is
entitled to be confronted with said Pc
tition signed by him and which was
before proper officer
and containing the proper seal. That
has no knowledge where or
how the various exhibits were obtain
ed by this court and declines to be
bound in matter affecting his honor
and livelihood by an alleged copy un-
certified in any particular.
5th. Respondent made several state
nent while in the city OF San Francisco
the case Of S. r. Price and
he does not know and cannot in a mat
.er of such seriousness admit the al
eyed paper handed to him to be q
rue and correct copy of the petition
lied by respondent. That any and all
papers signed and sworn to by re-
ipondent can be produced If this court
las jurisdiction of the subject matter
If this cause. And respondent de-
hands that the same be produced and
lie be confronted with the same before
lction is taken, practically charging
lin with perjury and involving him in
disgrace, especially where the judge,
Who claims to have been injured by
aid petition, sits as the trial Judge to |
determine the facts in this hearing. |
that therefore respondent does not adj |
nit that the words set forth as having |
'een used by him are the exact and |
rue statement of the words used by |
lin in a petition filed for writ of /
labeas corpus and demands the pro-
uction of his petition.
9Th. That respondent does not know /
vhat is meant in said citation by the |
printed record in Cause No. 1923 now |
ending in the United States Court of |
appeals for the Ninth Circuit and |
that the court Is without ju- /
isdiction to cite respondent in a mat
er beyond the jurisdiction of this court /
ow pending in a court of competent /
and which by said cita-
ion clearly appears that 1t is matter
INVOLVING a charge before the said
Tnited States Court of Appeals for the
Iinth Circuit.
7th. In regard to the statement con-
aimed in said citation as to the aff-
avit of one Bert Schlesinger, and all
eyed copy of said affidayits attached
s Exhibit b. respondent has no
nowledge of said affidavit, has never
cen the same anu aL tHe udte aleH-
oned thereof it being made. to wit,
he Goth day of February, 1907, re-
pondent was not in city of San Fran
Isco, State of California, but in or
bout the city of New York. That
aspopdent denies absolutely that he
an be punished in this court for any
tatement in said affidavit and does
OF know whether said affidavit was
yer made by said Schlesinger and
lbmfts that the court should produce
aid Schlesinger as to any CONVERSE
ons with respondent before charging
sspondent on a mere alleged copy of