The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1896-07-29
CLOSING OF THE CASE
CAPT. GOOD AND MIR. RHODES
WERE ROSS-EXAMINED.
Their Meetings-No Talk About the
Missing Sight-Capt. Goods Mem
ory-Case Submitted.

7:45 Tuesday evening, Major Mcleod
absent. The defendant, Capt. Good,
took the stand again for cross examin-
alton by Judge Advocate Kinney.
THE SIGHT AGAIN.
He said he had the conversation
with Rhodes about the sight the lat
ter end of May. Prior to this time
had examined the box of sights in the
hands of Sergt. Weatherby. Could
not fix precise date of interview with
Mr.. Rhodes. Could not fix the date
of receiving the lost sight from Sergt.
Carlyle. Think it must have been
more than five months ago. Had
learned that Taylor had something to
do with the sight. Think questioned
Taylor about the sight. Remembered
little about the sight matter. Since
the Court of Inquiry met had been
thinking hard on the matter, but
could get no closer to the circum-
stances. From the time of arrest and
meeting of the Court of Inquiry wit
ness had no thought of being accused
about the lost sight. From the time
the matter was brought to the atten-
ton of witness he realized that it was
a serious charge.
HAD BEEN THINKING.
On account of being in such close
h,1
done nothing, save thinking, to clear
up the matter. Had requested Mr.
Robertson to make some investiga-
tions and believed they were made
Gave the names of Moore, Taylor and
Carlyle. Did not tell him specifically
! to examine these men. Told him 70
! see Lient. Ludewig and ex-Sergt. Me-
Keague of Company F. Wanted Rob-
ertson to ask McKeague, he being first
sergeant, if he knew anything about
the disposition of the sight. Had done
nothing else to clear up the matter
Had been only thinking--or trying to
think. The entire Regiment had been
at the disposal of Mr.. Robertson for
the purpose of obtaining evidence.
NOT REPORTED.
Have no recollection of reporting the
finding of the sight to the Colonel or
any other officer. Was not officer of
the day at the time. Witness idea of
the precise course of an officer was
perhaps to report it to the officer of
the day. II might have been proper to
put it in the gun, or turned it over to
the Colonel, or to Weatherby. There
was report that Company f men
were careless and witness knew they
were touchy about it. Did not remem-
Der what became of the sight. Wit
ness memory picked up the fact that
Company f cleaned the guns from
questions by the Court of Inquiry.
JOGGING HIS MEMORY.
Mr.. Kinney asked if many occasions
since the sight was reported did no.
come up to bring to mind the sight
in Company f diary, one of which
stated that on the 22nd sights were
counted and there were only fifteen
on hand.) There was some conversa-
ton with Ludewig about the sight.
The talk did not recall any of the cir
cumstances of the lost sight. Never
recollected anything about it--but that
Carlyle had put the sight in witness
hands.
REASONS FOR RETICENCE.
The reason why defendant had not
reported Rhodes remarks to higher
authority was that he knew Mr..
Rhodes was "a detective in the conf
dence of the President, and perhaps
employed by Minister Cooper he being
the acting attorney general. Another
reason was communicated by an Off
Ger in confidence.
Defendant said this reason would re-
fleet on members of the court.
Mr.. Kinney insisted that il should
be stated
Court allowed the question.
He said had been informed by Maj.
Jones that Col Fisher and Mai Me
Ieod had been appointed to the tac-
teal board to advise with Minister
Cooper and that Col. Mclean was I.
be shut out from the meetings. A
third reason was that Col. Mclean al
lowed no officer TO see a higher officer
without permission and until a state
ment of the business was made The
defendant felt that he was not believed
by the Colonel, and in view of what
Maj. Jones had said did not believe
the Colonel was in the confidence of
Continued on Page Five.)