The Hawaiian gazette., 1910-05-13
HOT SHOT FOR
JUDGE PARSONS
The Attorney-General Prodding
the Hilo Circuit
Judge.
MANDAMUs THREAT AGAIN
Judges Record of Proceedings
Years Ago Differs From the
Attorney Generals.
MANDAMUs THREAT AGAIN
tFrom wedne.aay ANvertser.l

(From Wednesday AOvertlser.j
Judge Parsons of Hilo and the attor-
ney- generals department have been
having some lively correspondence as a
result of an interview in The Adver-
tiser of April 8, in which Deputy Attor-
ney-General Lymer stated that Parsons
was about to be called to account for
failing to decide boundary case which
was submitted to him as boundary com
missioner four years ago. The net re-
suit of the correspondence so far APP
pears to be that the attorney generals
department stands by the statement
made in the original Advertiser publ
cation, that it will mandamus Parsons,
as boundary commissioner, to give a
decision unless he does so in the near
future of his own accord.
The matter has finally resolved itself
into a personal controversy between
Judge Parsons and the attorney-gen-
eral IS department, tne judge claiming
that he has been treated with insolence
and the Encouragement IS department
insinuating that there is something
more than strange in the judges re-
luctance to render decision in an i'm
portant case the defendant in which is
former client of his.
Parsons Was DEFENDANTS Attorney.
1t appears from statements made by
Attorney Lindsay and hts dep
uty, Mr.. Lymer, that a slight mac
euracy crept into the original story
published by The Advertiser. Judge
Parsons was not the boundary commits
sioner in 1901, at the time the suit was
originally filed. But he was the
boundary commissioner in 1906, and in
such capacity heard the evidence in the
case. AS a matter of fact, he was in
1901 the attorney for the Pepeekeo
Sugar Company, the defendant in the
suit brought by the Territory. He was
associated with Carl Smith, who is still
attorney for, the sugar company.
Refused to File Brief.
The case, involving the ownership of
about $4,000 worth of valuable cane
land, first came up in 1901, and result
ed in verdict for the sugar company.
Later, in 1906, the attorney general Is
department, of which E. C. Peters was
then the head, became convinced that
the surveys on which the decision was
rendered were fraudulent. and had the
case reopened 1t was tried before
Judge Parsons as boundary commits
sioner, though Parsons had previously
been attorney for the defendant com
pany.. The evidence was submitted, the
case argued, and the cause brought W
to the point of a decision. At that
iuncture, according to statement made
By Attorney General Lindsay yester
day, Carl Smith, attorney for the Pc
peekeo Sugar Company, moved that The
parties to the suit be allowed to file
briefs. The copy of the record now ia
the possession of the attorney-genera
shows that Deputy Attorney Genera
Milverton, who then appeared for tht
Territory, made the statement that, al
only question of fact and not of law
was involved, the Territory did not de
sire to file any brief. Carl Smith, how
ever, was granted time in which to file
a brief.
That was on October 8, 1906, YET
Carl Smith did not Ale any brief unit
a few days ago, after the controversy
started by The Advertiser article, was
begun. The Territory, having no rea
son for fling brief, did not file one
Lindsay's Statement.
Yesterday, Acknowledgement Lind
say made the following statement:
"The fact of the matter is that, il
the year 1905, case was tried before
Parsons as boundary commissioner, in
volving the title to the land of KaIhui
II, district of Hilo. The record in thu
case shows that at the end Carl Smitl
made a motion that the attorneys b
allowed to file briefs. Mr.. Milverton
who represented the Territory, mad
the statement that the Territory ha'
no desire to file a brief. Time, how
ever, was given Carl Smith to file I
brief. That was four years ago.
"When the matter came to Mr.. Ly
mer's attention, he had only the rec
ord to rely upon. The facts, as the,
appear to us, are that the case wa
argued before Judge Parsons fou
years ago, and there has been no deci
sion rendered yet. This is looked upol
as very strange-to say the least.
"Mr. Milverton, who handled tn
case for the Territory, says that at tn
end of the argument, Carl Smith aske
leave to file a brief. Mr.. Milverto
confended that there was no neces
sity for a brief, that it was simply
plain question of fact. The commits
sioner had just heard the evidence an
there was no question of law involved
The only question to be decided wa
as to where was the boundary of tina
land. And yet, Judge Parsons has no
vet rendered any decision in the mat
ter"
Conflicting Records.
Although the copy of the record no
in the office of the attorneygenerl
states distinctly that Mr.. Milyerto
made the statement that the attorney
for the Territory would not hand in
brief, Judge Parsons last week sent in
copy Of the last page Of the record, I
the effect that Mr.. Milverton made I'll
statement that the Territory woul
submit brief. Mr.. Mlyerton, how
ever, emphatieally denies the truth q