The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1890-02-26

formal. kuupahu was prevented
from coming here by sickness.
Cross-eXamined--It was the next
week after the election that | got The
idea that it was right and proper to
pay these men. Had no such idea
before that. Did not intend wrong.
Did not think it contrary TO law. |
thought IL wrong TO tell them before
hand that | would pay them money
as it might he regarded as an agree
mcnt. The 50 put down for kahao
was money already paid him for
lodging, ETC., and not what intend
cd to pay Kim. ! inadvertently put
down the amount as paid for SER
vices as luna. Am not familiar
with the proper forms. The item of
50 personal expense was for shoes.
| got wet and got pair for change.
kahai was luna, don't know how
good he was. Kama, of Waialua, !
was told, was working for me. Don't
know whether kaalc worked for me
but suppose he did. kuncola was
around. Did not see him working
particularly. Kailaa and kuupaha
were active. Don't know whether
the others worked o. not. Never
promised kailaa anything. Did not
know kahai was luna at Wanna
nalo. Have not been there for ten
years. slept at house of kahai
shortly prior to the election but did
not know he was plantation luna.
Did not know he was a luna Tor me
when | slept at his house. Met Mr..
Cummlns and kahai there. Told
them I was candidate and asked
leave to make 4 speech. They re-
fused on the ground that the men
were busy and told me to 90 home.
Saw Kahai election day in company
with men. | put him down as a
luna. ] have not told these men to
this day that | would pay the money
put down. 1t is of no use to tell
them rs long as | have not the mon
ey to pay them. Gro the Court)-
This is not the first time | have
been candidate. | was q candi-
date in 1883 against Mr.. Brown.
Defense rests.
Prosecution recalls
Mr.. Rose-I remember convcrsa-
ton with kailaa Saturday. Kailaa
said he was promised ten dollars
from Paikuli.
Cross-examincd by Mr.. Rosa -
His expression was 'aole loa ma
hope" Would construc these
words TO mean, twill get it by and
by" Am convcrsant with Hawai-
ian.
Prosecution rests.
Mr.. Davidson then said in de-
Tense that agreement means mu-
tual concurrence of two minds.
There was no proof of any contract
between Paikuli and these men.
Paoa is the only witness who casts
one shadow of doubt on defendants
integrity. But this only a shadow
which is completely dissipatcd by
cOunter-statement of defendant.
Taking into consideration the COM
parative worth of the two men, con.
trasting the dignity and repose of
one with the degraded mien and
shifty evasions of the other, how
can such an accusation win cred
ence? A man is liable TO err under
this remarkable statute unless he be
an adept at construction of law.
With no criminal intent but with a
conscientious impulse the defendant
had in his report simply recorded
his resolve to repay those who had
labored for his benefit. This was a
mental reservation confined to his
own breast, locked in his own coun-
sci and had none of the character
istics of bargain or contract.
Mr.. Kinney replied at some
length, calling attention to some
discrepancies between Mr.. Paikuli's
memorandum of expenses and Mr..
Paikuli's explanation of the same.
1t was absurd to attribute any con-
struction TO these entries except the
most obvious one. 1t was an insult
to the intelligence of this court to
suppose it would refuse to accord
the manifest significance conveyed
by the language and adopt the mys-
FERROUS acceptaton of Il mental
reservation not at all in harmony
with the text. If mental processes
raked up afterwards were entitled
to such respect would not mental
reservations be an apology for every
form of crime? This document en-
presses the mind of the writer most
accurately and these mental rcscrva-
tions are but tactics Of defense.
No accusation of wrong intent has
been laid at the door of the prisoner.
He probably sinned unknowingly,
unintentionally. His real culpabilily
commences with his defense in this
suit. This is serious case and is
not to be answered by such ilmsy
pretcxts. Counsel then reviewed
the evidence and wound up with an
eloquent appeal for judicial vindi'
cation of the purity of the ballot.
The Court then addressed the
prisoner about as follows:
The strongest evidence against
the defendant seems TO have been
furnished by himself. That he de.
| liharotalv onI with criminal inf ant