Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1902-11-11
MAK|NNEY IS GUILTY
FINED $500 IN THE
POLICE COURT TO-DAY

F. w. Mckinney appeared in the Po-
lice Court today on three separate
charges of gross cheat, sworn to by
Matsumoto, Mr.. Levy and Mr.. Monies
of Camara & Co., respectively.
S. Il. Damon Of Bishop e. Co.'S bank
was the first witness examined in the
first case.
High Sheriff Brown, who conducted
the case for the prosecution, asked
questions regarding Makinney's funds
in the bank. which brought out that
Makinney's personal account in the
bank closed August 81, 1899. Since
then, he had had trustee account but
this was closed October, 1900, and at
present, Mckinney had no funds in the
Nk. On the contrary he owed the
bank a small sum.
The High Sheriff showed Mr.. Damon
the check which Mckinney had passed
on Matsumoto. It was identified by
Mr.. Damon who stated that II had been
presented at the bank but payment on
II had been refused as there we're no
funds in Makinney's name.
Since then, Mckinney had come to see
Mr.. Damon, telling him that he would
never have drawn the check had It not
been for the fact that the poor condi-
ton OF his financial circumstances had
compelled him to do so. He begged to
be "let on" promising that he would
never do such thing again.
Attorney +. NJ. Brooks. who appeared
for the defendant, asked Mr.. Damon II
Mckinney had overdrawn his account,
to which witness answered that Ma
kinney had done so two years ago.
Matsumoto. the emplove of 0zaki &
Co.. on whom the check in question
had been passed, next took the stand.
He stated that he did not wish to
prosecute as the defendant had already
made good the check. The High Sher-
IN told him that he wanted to know
the truth about the Whole matter but
the witness was evidently very 10th to
testify against the defendant and the
cross-examination brought out little or
/ 10 eNlutnCe vi importance.
Mr.. Brooks made motion that the
defendant be discharged on account of
insuficiency of evidence, which motion
was granted by the court.
In the second case. In which Levy,
the owner of the fruit store in the Oc-
cidental block, had sworn to the war
rant. the testimony Of Mr.. Damon, the
first witness also in this case, gave
testimony TO practically the same eff
feet as that given in the first case.
Levy on the stand stated that on No
vember 3 Mckinney had bought tin
of oysters from him. giving him in
payment check for 40 on Bishop
Bank. Levy gave him 1910 in change.
He had tried to cash the check but the
bank refused to honor IL. Mckinney
had come to him later and offered TO
make the check good and this had been
done later, Mrs. L. S. Holt paying the
amount.
Mr. Brooks here made strenuous eff
fort to secure a discharge of the de-
PENDANT. He held that as the checl
had been rendered by Mckinney ant
was in his own name, II was merely Q
lie put in writing and not gross cheat
He quoted authorities for this in max
ing his motion for discharge. This
was. however. denied by the court
Whereupon Mr.. Brooks stated that the
defense had no evidence TO offer ant
rested the case.
In the third case the testimony of Mr.
Damon was of the same nature as tina
given by him in the two first cases
Mr.. Monies, the employe of Camara &
Co. who had given Mckinney som'
goods and $3.50 in change for checl
for $40 presented by him. testified Il
these facts. The next day Camara ha'
told him not to cash the check then
but on the following day he, thinking
II would be all right had tried to casl
the check at the bank but had been re
fused payment on ii. Mckinney ha,
made the check good before the war
rant for his arrest had been sworn L
by Mr.. Monies.
On this evidence Mr. Brooks made
motion that the defendant be discharg
ed, but this was denied by the court
The defense then rested its case. MI
Brooks only asking that punishment b
: made as lenient as possible.
The High Sheriff stated to the cour
that as far as he was concerned, h
did not think that Imprisonment wa
necessary and that fine would suffice
The court found Mckinney guilty OF
the last two charges and fined him $40
and costs in each case. Appeals wer
noted.