The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1902-09-27
OF WRIGHT
Continued from page one)

had cashed it, 1t was routine mat
ter and unless circumstances drew
special attention TO a check he would
not be prepared to swear as to tn 2
man cashinE it.
Cross examination, witness stated
that there was a chance of another Of
fetal of the bank paying out the money
and that he relied on the stamp Of the
bank for knowledge of the banks pay
ment. Attorney Ashford would not al
low the witness to refer to his book rec
ords. George Fuller, keeper Of those
records, was sent for to bring the books
into court.
Manuel Cook, first assistant clerk and
bookkeeper of the Department Of Pub
lie Works, was the next witness called
by the prosecution. Ashford objected
to oral evidence from the witness as
to Wright's position in the department..
He was overruled and the witness tes-
titled that the clerks in the Office TOOK
their instructions from the defendant,
among his duties being the receiving Of
the cash received during the day. He
could not say if Wright was empower
ed to collect or receipt for moneys of
the department. Ashford objected to
this question but was overruled. The
witness had seen the defendant write
and fully identified the signature. He
kept the books. Other objections fired
in by Ashford were overrued by the
court who stated that the prosecution
had to introduce it's evidence in piece
meal and if evidence was Irrelevant it
could be stricken out.
The prosecution brought out the GUS
tom of the office in which amounts re-
ceived by the cashier were entered on
stubs and the stubs balanced at the
close of the day with the cash by b.
Haywood Wright. Mr. Siemsen was
the supposed cashier.
The endeavor was to show that while
the money was receipted for by Wright
| there was 10 entry in any of the books
concerning the $3zS9.J3.
Mr.. Cook stated that there was no
entry on the books on August 10 for
subsequent to that date, credting the
Electric Company or showing that such
an amount had been paid. Counsel for
the defense objected to every question
and was overruled. Cross examined as
to if it was customary for Wright to
| make up the stubs, witness could not
remember specifically among the great
number of stubs. Witness sometimes
in the absence of the cashier took
money, gave receipts, and filled stubs.
There were five people in tn office who
occasionally received money when the
cashier, Siemsen, was absent. Cash
was kept in the cashiers drawer. Mon
ey received by others was held until
the cashiers return who alone kept the
key.
Ashford proved that the cashier some
times only made an accounting every
| few days. The witness added that the
cashier always endeavored to hand the
| do bt1t h. I,a1 J, cd
heard Wright say, Never mind, wait a
| day or So" The endeaVor was to show
that it was the habit of the cashier not
to turn over the cash daily. In those
cases the money was kept in the cash
ier's private safe Wright had charge
of the big safe in which the cashier s
safe was placed. Testimony was ask
ed by defense to show that the COM
blnation of the big safe had not been
changed when Wright took Boyd's po-
sition as chief clerk, but the witness
could not testify as to this point
ReeXamined by the Attorney General.
witness did not receive the check pro-
duced in evidence or that sum from
anybody
High Sheriff A. NJ. Brown testified
| that on September Is the Attorney Cen
eral had asked the defendant whether
he had received the check in question
as to what he had done with the money.
Attorney General e. p. Dole testified
that on September he had spoken with
the defendant. "On Monday, Septem-
Der 8, was given information that led
to meeting of myself with the de-
PENDANT, his counsel and other officials.
AT this time, about II o'clock, no defal-
cation was spoken of. Deputy Auditor
Meyers opened the safe in the presence
of all present and the cash was count
ed.
There was a deficit announced by
the Deputy Auditor of $525O.1O. He was
asked if the deficit was correct and he
stated that there was no doubt of it,
and that he would refund the money
WITHIN four days. The amount of the
hawaiian Electric Companys check
came up and 1 asked defendant if he
mad cashed the check, which he admit
ted. l asked him what he had done
with the money and he answered 1t is
gone Further he declined to answer.
told him that he must be taken in
charge until the facts were more fully
known though ! could not guarantee
ms not being arrested as any time on
warrant. He acceded to this proce-
dure."
Attorney General Douthitt drew at
tentlon to a section of the civil laws
relating to the payment of franchise
percentage and rested the case for the
prosecution. An adjournment until next