Daily Honolulu press. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1886, 1886-01-28


was not paid. told him that if he
would accept the bill as corrected he
could have the money at once. The
interview closed with Oakley saying,
"Tll see ! I'll see p l think he came
again. l told him / did not want to
be bothered any more about it The
note was returned to Mcintyre. l was
acting as the Queens attorney took
Dayton with me and went to see Mr.
tombstone Mr.. Johnstone said he
could not give me an answer without
consulting his attorney, Mr. Dole. On
Monday at II o'clock Mr.. Johnstone
told me that the management of the
paper would not consent to his giving
up the name of his informant. The
only reduction | made on the bill was
what | considered fair. There was
nothing discounted on the bill.
Mr.. Dole on cross-examination sub
mitted and identified the letter in the
Bulletin. Mr. ]. o. Carriers letter in the
Bulletin of January 18th was read by
Mr.. Dolein in the hearing of the Court and
jury, with special reference to the last
paragraph, which the witness said was
the particular matter to which he re-
ferred in his letter to the BRiittia next
day. Continuing witness said My
letter as published in the article con
tanning the alleged libel is true. / say.
too, that Mr.. Oakley had no claim
against the Government, The quota
ton from the 4S1sThSsr that Mr.. Oak
ley had no claim against the Govern
Msns IS correct Wallace gave me his
note l do not know what became os
t. | think II was returned 10 him.
My lnpreSS5On Is thai Wallace got the
noes 1acS, | had 10 use sor & Fs0ca
she tune Wallace came 10 me u-,zi1 The
eseh Of ApFtl. was rsprsse--a-ss
Curtis Waliace. Mnas ssaS5 n. Clssa-e
the orher Gay about abusing cH,s Qtussn
IS correct I GS6 n,oe Sis II sAe Rsihos
Cisurc uiiaE # be wetrlS gss Mr.. OlSitsys
srS5ers I wcui,s psrass 5ae Queen ~
gay iE Lt5iis say I nigar se aSe ID
ger Eiits ucnev dsr hiIn. Z 10 nzr As-
ifisss eias Z snls I seuiiE aarse @he
hlesn u1 as,essr ,t,s srIsn z gunnu
rsmemlaer wihsfifen Il WINS Mis-. swan ul
rlysslf r1u1 can't Wliliale 5tr munss
Z d61 nr0r cfilIrge WHlhrs lnwfiine i'm.
my ssrvucss Hs EaIn ne SEa 1
canz0t ezIA what 1Ine MI. WgaIEsr tfrsi
spoke 10 ne aE,aun the. attain. N.tsn Z
told Mr. Walker tf1ar uiie. S;rc qugifn
to be dsducred- be uerlnned with tlie
bill, with the Sy5a credited. Reph
no copy Of the account The law ex
penses certainly d6d noe make all the
deductions struck of the bill NV I'M
preston Is that the amount dIsalIowed
ranged somewhere between SI7o and
S23o. l am sure that the amount did
not exceed $2So. What the items. be
sides the law expenses were, cannot
state. l think the rest of the amount
was for extras Q. "What made you
think the extras were wrong?7 A 81
do not see what that has to do with the
case, but if his Honor directs, l will
answer it." His Honor ruled that the
question was proper one to answer.
The witness proceeded: 1 thought the
DILL 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 $1,000.
"a paper was presented witness,
which he identified as one of the bills
presented to him, on which the 5000
credit, paid to Curtis, did not appear.
There was another account subsequent
to this one. l cannot remember the
first time Mr. Walker came to my Of
fee about this matter. He did not
allow what / proposed to strike out.
He said he would have to see Oakley.
My impression is that Walker came to
see me at least two times, probably
three or four times. l never saw Mr.
Oakley on this business after / had
told him / did not want to have any
thing more to do with it. Mr.. Oakley
came to me twice at least. He came
before Mr.. Walker came. | struck out
from the bill $I2 Il remember the
item now for law expenses. The
Queen had ordered me to look over
the bill, and asked me to look through
it, and let her know how much was
fair to pay on it. She did not instruct
me to pay it. Only to let her know,
and it would be paid.
The counsel for the prosecution
claimed that the defense do now pro-
duce the account referred to in their
examination. Mr.. Walker brought me
two accounts on one of which was
credited the $500 paid upon the other.
My first objection was by not seeing
the $500 paid on Ooakley's order
credited. The account on which the
item of $50 was entered on the DR..
instead OF on the Cr. side, was re-
turned. Referring to the bill now in
evidence, witness said he objected to
the non-appearnace of $500 which had
been paid. The $50 was for material
furnished Mr. Oakley instead of his
furnishing it himself Another bill
was presented to witness by Mr. Dole,
with the question: elias this bill the
$50 struck out2" A. care you
short-sighted why do you ask me fool
sh questions Read the bill for your
A..