The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1886-01-28
The PRESS LIBEL CASE.

y
terday, after recess, at / o'clock,
Mr.. Justice Preston presiding. The
libel suit was at once proceeded
with. Mr.. Paul Neumann, Attorney
General, took the witness stand, and
gave substantially the same evidence
as in the Police Court, and pub
lished in this paper on the 22nd
inst. Following are the particulars
elected on the cross-examination,
most of which, it will be seen, are
merely supplementary to those pub
lished last week:-
Wallace gave me his note. l do
not know what became of it. l
think it was returned to him. My
impression is that Wallace got the
note back, l had no use for it.
From the time Wallace came to me
until the 25th of April, l was re-
presenting Curtis Wallace. What l
said in Court the other day about
advising the Queen is correct. l
did not say at the Police Court that
if he would get Mr.. Oakley's order,
l would advise the Queen to pay it.
l did say l might be able to get the
money for him. do not believe
that 1 said l would advise the Queen
to accept the order. cannot re-
member whether it was Mrs. Swan
or myself that paid Wallace the
money. / did not charge Wallace
anything for my service. He paid
me $50. l cannot tell what time
Mr.. Walker first spoke to me about
the affair. After l told Mr.. Walker
that the $500 ought to be deducted,
he returned with the bill, with the
$500 credited. l kept no copy of
the account. The law expenses
certainly did not make all the de-
auctions struck off the bill. My
impression is that the amount dis
allowed ranged somewhere between
$40 and $3.50. L am sure that the
amount did not exceed $3.50. What
the items, besides the law expenses
were, | cannot state. / think the
rest of the amount was for extras.
Q. "What made you think the
extras were wrong?" A. 81 do
not see what that has to do with the
case, but if His Honor directs,
will answer it," His Honor ruled
that the question was proper one
to answer. The witness proceeded
| thought the bill was of kind
called "plummer's BILL" and that
the Queen had been overcharged.
l think the bill, as l allowed it, must
have been about 81, 800 or 81, 300.
CA paper was presented witness,
which he identified as one of the
bills presented to him, on which the
$500 credit, paid to Curtis, did not
appear.) There was another &C.
count subsequent to this one,
cannot remember the first time Mr.
Walker came to my Office about
this matter. He did not allow what
/ proposed to strike out. He sale
he would have to see Oakley. My
impression is that Walker came tt
sec me at least two times, probably
three or four times. l never saw
Mr.. Oakley on his business after
had told him | did not want to hav,
anything more to do with it. Mr.
Oakley came to me twice at least
He came before Mr.. Walker came
| struck out from the bill SIP {
remember the item now) for law ex
penses. The Queen had ordere,
me to look over the bill, and let he
know how much was fair to pay OF
it. She did not instruct me to pa,
it. Only to let her know, and j
would be paid.
(The counsel for the prosecution
claimed that the defense do no,
produce the account referred to i
their examination, which was done.
Mr.. Walker brought me two &C
counts on one of which was credite
the $500 paid upon the other. Nj
first objection was by not seeing til
$500 paid on Oakley's order credited
The account on which the item c
$50 was entered on the DIR. instea
of on the Or. side, was returned
Referring to the bill now in ev
dence, witness said he had objecte
to the non-appearance of $500 whic
had been paid. The $50 was f
material furnished Mr.. Oakley il
stead of his furnishing it himself
(Another bill was presented to wi
: ness by Mr., Dole, with the question
elias this bill the $50 struck out ?