The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1886-01-21

this Kingdom.
Cross-examined by Mr.. Dole
Mr.. Neumann said that he knew the
editors business, and asked him if
he would be willing to give the
names of the parties. Johhstone
either admitted or said that the arti-
Gle was written at the instance of
other parties. Q. Was not that
the main point, the names of his
informantsY A. No; l think it
was altogether that he wanted to
consult with them.
PAUL NEUMANN-I am Attorney
General for the Kingdom; am COM
plainant in this case have examined
this article; saw it first on Saturday
evening, in this paper { Press pro-
duced); believe ] am the party
named in article; am certainly the
party who wrote the account inserted
therein that was sent to the BULLE-
TIN. Q.-Will you examine the
statements in that article and state
what is true or false? A.-The
statement made by me in the BULLE-
TIN is true, also the statement made
in the "Advertiser" that Oakley
had no claim against the Govern
ment. 1t is not true that it was my
duty to pay any claim of Mr..
Oakley, nor did l ever have any
moneys in my hands to pay it. 1t
is true that l struck out some items
of the bill-not presented by Mr..
Oakley, for had nothing whatever
to do with him in the matter-nor
did attempt to force any discount
on Mr.. Oakley. 1 never demanded
from Mr.. Oakley $500 or any money
for getting the money paid to him,
or for getting his claim paid to him,
or for anything else. do not know
what Mr.. Oakley might have said,
but had no claim to settle with
him, either honestly, justly, unjustly,
or otherwise. The statement of Mr..
Oakley's version of the affair being
capable of being proven is utterly
untrue; there is not word of truth
in it. The claim of Oakley was for
work done under contract for GER
tain houses in Alakea street. / do
not know of any written contract I;
all know is what have heard. 1
heard that Oakley built some build
ings there for the Queen. l Iremem-
Der that Curtus Wallace came to
me and showed me note that Mr..
Oakley had made for $500, and
stated to me that Mr.. Oakley had
some money coming to him for
building those houses, and that if
Oakley could get that money his
note would be paid. He (Wallace)
asked me to see the Queen, as he
was in need of money, and try to
get that for him. l told him l
should, or see him in u few days
afterward. / then told him he
could have the money because there
was that and more money due Mr..
Oakley, but that 1 could not advise
Her Majesty to pay the $500 or use
Mr.. Uakley's note as an offset, but
if he would have Mr.. Oakley sign
an order that | would advise her to
accept the order as receipt, and
give it to him. Mr.. Wallace asked
me to write the order; l wrote it
out and handed it to him, and he
left. He brought lit back subse-
quently, signed by Mr.. Oakley; l
directed him to endorse it Git was
payable to his order), and sent for
Mrs. Swan, who was attending to
the Queens business. l am not
sure whether Mrs. Swan paid it to
him or handed the money to me, but
at any rate it was paid to him and
the order given by Mrs. Swan to me
with orders to keep it for her until
the whole affair was settled. (Order
dated April 27, 1885, produced in
book and identified by witness.
Some time afterward Mr.. J. S.
Walker went to the Office and asked
me whether l held Mr.. Oakley's
affair in my hands for settlement on
behalf of the Queen. told him
did not, and related to him what
have stated here just now, and that
was all that had to do with it. Mr.
Walker asked me whether L woulC
have Mr.. Oakley's account settled
he spoke to me about Mr.. Oakley;
necessities. told him would g
over to see the Queen. The Queer
told me she would pay the money al
once, but was not sure whether th'
bill was correct or not, and asked
me to look over it. | learned tha
His Majesty had given Oakley not,
for Sl700, which represented worl
done up to date when note wa
given. l thought Oakley could us'
it until his business was settled will
, the Queen, but there was no none,
! due to Mr.. Oakley until the worl
was completed.
o Mr.. DOLE objected that witnes
h was speaking of what he had onl,
heard The Court ruled that, il