The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1903-02-26
BOYD AS A
WITNESS
EvidenceDoes Not
Harm B. II.
Wright.
Is Treasurer Wright to
Be the Scape
Goat.
Technical Fight Is Being Made on
Behalf of Chief Clerk of
Public Works.

If there is a failure to show that B.
H. Wright was not a public account
ant and not charged with the collection
OF public monies, the theory of the de-
fence in the first of the embezzlement
cases will probably be that w. H.
Wright, the missing Treasurer Of the
Territory, is responsible for the thefts
charged to the chief clerk. The jury in
the Wright case was secured the first
thing in the morning and there was a
technical fight all day long, as to the
responsibilities of the chief clerk in the
matter of collecting monies for the Ter
ritory The defendant claims that he
is not a public accountant, and as en-
bezzlement is statutory offense he
cannot be convicted of taking money
which he was not entitled to receive.
Judge De Bolt was inclined to favor the
argument of the defendant on the prop
osition that he was not legally re-
sponsible as a public accountant, but
there was no direct ruling. and the
question will probably not be settled un-
til it is submitted in a motion to direct
a verdict to acquit after the Territory
has put in all of its evidence.
Jas. H. Boyd was the first witness for
the prosecution and his testimony was
objected to on the ground that he was
an "accomplice." The objection was
overruled and he was allowed to take
the stand though there were continued
objections to the evidence offered by
him. However his testimony was not
unfavorable to the defendant and there
was no cross-examination of him by
Mr.. Dunno. Boyd's attorney, F. E.
Thompson. was present in court during
all the hearings, and is watching the
case closely.
Boyd testified that he had appointed
B. H. Wright as chief clerk, but this
was stricken out, but the court allowed
the commissions to be introduced,
Dunno, who produced them, stating
that he did admit their legality.
Objection was made to testimony re-
lating to the regulations under which
claimed that the law provided for ap-
pointment of public accountants in a |
certain way. and that Wright had not
been so designated. He argued that the
office was a statutory one, and that |
under the law a regulation was insult !
fcient in supporting charge of en- |
bezzlement. The court sustained the |
objection, also one as to the custom |
of the Office. He allowed Boyd how
ever to testify as to what he had in
formed Wright concerning his duties.
Was there a combination to the
safe asked Cathcart, after Boyd had
told him that Wright had charge of
he office.
Yes, Mr.. Wright had the combina-
ion. also the key to the inner door.
There was only one key that 1 had
of. and 1 turned it over to
Mr.. Wright as chief clerk in June, when
turned over the cash and books.
old him to change the combination 1
lad, and put in one of his own. I don't
know whether he did or not 1 placed
duplicate combination of the safe with
he Treasurer, just prior to my leaving
he Territory. 1t was on September End,
So2. that left for San Francisco, and '
left control of the Public Works Office t
With Treasurer Wright It
He's gone too" remarked Davis. ]
And he had the combination for a f
month";" meaningly added Dunno
In the afternoon there was more ar
as to the position of Wright. q
)unne claiming that he had only the I
uties prescribed by law, and the col
ection of money was not one of them I
'athcart replied that the law provided G
hat the superintendent of Public
Works fix the duties and the court stat
that it could not be presumed that
he chief clerk had no duties. c
Boyd was allowed to testify that he c
ad told Wright that he was to have
omplete charge of the books of the 9
apartment. was to receive all monies
nd was to account for them to the
treasurer as was prescribed by the :
.udit act.
There was no cross-examination of e
Ir Boyd.
Chorlas S;ar~,San oas,.;o- =. ~, ~.