The Hawaiian gazette., 1911-06-16
MAGOON BEATEN
IN LEGAL DUEL
CLIENT BARRED IN coNDEMNA.
TON SUIT. RULES JUDGE
oLEMoNs.
CFrom ThursdaYls Advertiser.l

Through ruling made by Judge |
Clemens in the United States district |
court yesterday, following one render
ed earlier in the afternoon, j. Alfred
AIagoon s client, Amy Helene ThOmp
son, a minor, was found to have no
standing in the Waikiki condemnation
suit. In other words, Magoon is out
of il entirely
The attorney fought hard to obtain
for his client the right to share in
whatever sum the jury decides shall
be paid for the land which the United
States wants for fertilization purposes,
but he failed to make out a case. At
torney Olson, of Holmes, Stanley &
Olson, proved to be more than a match
for Magoon and met his contentious
with arguments and authorities which
Magoon was unable to prove to the
court should be overridden.
Mr.. Olson contended that decision
in Vol. 214, U. s., decided in 1908, en-
titled Gray versus Noholoa, and deci-
sion of the supreme court of Hawaii
in the case of Nakookoo versus Noho-
loa, in ninetieth Hawaii, 667 barred
Magoon's client, Amy Helene Thomp-
son, from any recovery or interest in
the case. Attorney Magoon eontended
that neither the circuit judge in prob
ate, the territorial supreme court that
passed upon the circuit courts ruling,
nor the United States Supreme Court,
that confirmed the construction of the
Hawaiian appellate court on the Nuho-
o. IS
the title of the land in question under
the proceedings in probate.
Rules Against Magoon.
Judge Clemens ruled that the matter
was res judicata, even if the will of
Hikilai Hebron, which was included
in this case, had been improperly trans
lated in the original probate proceed
ings, and even if, in the action to
quiet title in the first circuit court,
the judge, as claimed by Magoon,
founded his decision on an error either
of law or of fact.
The federal judge, however, does not
pretend to pass upon the question of
the translation of the will, nor upon
the correctness of any decision of any
court Of the Territory, but feels com.
PEELED, under the law, to respect the
Judgment of court which had iuris.
diction not only of the parties, but of
the subject matter.
During a discussion following the de-
cision Attorney Magoon remarked: az
do not think your honor g ruling con.
elusive" at which smile went round
the courtroom.
The next step in what descriptive
writers call the "long drawn out pro.
ceedings'' was the matter of proof of
claims. Attorney Olson asked the court
to direct that Magoon proceed with his
proof on behalf of his client, Miss
Thompson.
Argue as to Precedence.
Attorney Wilmington, who represents
the interests of his mariner, Mr. Castle
and others, objected. He declared that
the government ought to proceed first
Judge Clemens remarked that the
question before the court was as to the
disposition of Mr.. Magoon.
"I desire to ask that the regular
order be proceeded with, h" insisted Mr.
Wilmington. cit is incumbent on the
government to proceed,'' he added.
Judge Clemens: 1--WE will first dis
pose of all the parties who can be dis
posed of and get them out of the way
once and for all.,'
Mr.. Magoon declared that whatever
Mr.. Olson's client got his client wal
entitled to one-half. He thought Mr.
Olson should make the first proof
Mr.. Olson said Mr.. Magoon should
first offer his proof The, latter would
have to first offer evidence of his title
which would include translations Of tn,
will of David Noholoa, which he woult
at once object to, and, under the Judge
ruling, could not be admitted. HI
thought the time had come when it hat
been shown that Magoon's client hat
no standing in the court, and it woul,
help the expeditions disposition of tn
case if Magoon be directed to offe
proof first. 1t would then be deter
mined once and for all whether tn
Thompson minor had any materia
claim.
Minor Is Barred.
Judge Clemens said he had made
ruling the inevitable conclusion o
which was that MagoOn would be on
of the case. He therefore directed tina
the latter should proceed with hi
proof.
Charles X. Hopkins, Hawaiian inter
prefer, was then called by AtJorne
Magoon, who asked him if he had mad
translation of the Noholoa will.
Attorney Olson instantly objected t
the question as 'immaterial. He sal
Mr.. Magoon's client was barred.
Attorney Magoon said he offered t
prove by the witness that he made tn
translation and that it was correct
further that it was different transla
ton from that which was made for til
circuit court and that it showed tina
part of the property sought 70 be cor
demned by the United States was MOI
really owned by his client.
Judge Clempns sustained the objei
tion and noted an exception to his ru
ing which was made by Magoon. TIL
latter offered further proof along th
same lines, all Of which was objeete
to, the objections sustained and o.
ceptions noted.
Mr.. Olson then asked that Mr.. Witt
ington, attorney for w. r. Castle an
Others, lessees Of land concerned IN II
proceedings, offer their record Of tit
under the lease and documents subs
quent 20 the lease.
Meaning Of "otherwise.'
This was done. This lease Is date
500 and there IA question Of u