The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1903-03-03
WRIGHT
FOUND
GUILTY
Caught byEIectric
Light Check
Affair.
From Saturdays Daily.)

| H. AhoyNoou "riSHtv AoTHlerly CnleI
clerk OF the Public Works Office, was
found guilty by a jury yesterday of
the embezzlement of the check for
$4,000 from the Hawaiian Electric Co.,
| and acquitted as to the shortage in
his office of $4,9S2.10. There was no
evidence in defense and Wright did
not take the stand. relying on the in
structions from the court, which were
| exceedingly favorable to the defend
ant.
The statute on the Hawaiian books
Is an old one and the crime Of embex-
element Is not specifically covered as
1t Is In the older states and territories.
SO that ]. w. Cathcart for the prose-
cution had hard fight from the very
start.
At the opening Of court yesterday
morning Mr. Dunno announced that
the defense rested and the remainder
of the morning was consumed in the
argument over Instructions.
In the afternoon there was brief ar
gument to the jury in which the de-
Tense sought to show that there had
been no evidence as to Wright's guilt.
referring also to the instructions which
would be given of the extreme care
to be exercised in considering circum-
stantial evidence. 1t was charged
also that the government had no case
and for that reason employed Mr..
Cathcart to prosecute.
The courts instructions were ex-
ceedingly lengthy and the jury did not
retire until four o'clock. Judge De
Bolt instructed that at must be man
ifestly apparent to you, beyond all
reasonable doubt that there existed In
the mind of this defendant wilful
and felonious purpose to violate the
law, before you can find a verdict
against him."
Il feel 1t my duty" said the court
lin the language of the learned Chief
Justice Shaw, to warn you that great
care and caution should be exercised
by you in drawing differences from
proved facts. because the chief danger
to be avoided when dealing with cir
cumstantial evidence arises from
proneness, natural to man, to jump to
conclusions from certain facts, without
duly adverting to other facts which
are inconsistent with the hypothesis
which the first facts seem to indi-
cate"
The jury was also warned not to
convict him on suspicion, and also that
intent must be shown on Wright's
part to wrongfully convert the money
to his own use. The jury was instruct
ed also that the showing of a deficiency
in accounts without wrongful intent
was insufficient.
The jury was instructed also that de-
PENDANTS failure to take the stand
could not be used against him.
inc
follows:
Il instruct you that the meaning OF
the word embezzlement' is the fraud
ulent removing or secreting personal
property which includes money, with
which a party has been entrusted, for
the purpose of applying it to his own
use.
There can be no embezzlement,
within the legal meaning OF the word,
unless the party when he takes the
property or money does II secretly
with an intent to defraud the owner.
Il instruct you that to constitute
the crime OF embezzlement a felonious
intention to convert the property to
his own use must have existed after
the money came into his possession
and under the statutes of this Terri
tory making the unlawful conversion
OF property to his own use by a clerk
embezzement, the crime Is not made
out by merely showing a conversion
OF the property to his own use by the
official, but 1t must further appear
that such conversion was with fraud
ulent and felonious intent to appro-
pirate the same to his own use.
II further instruct you that the un-
lawful taking or conversion of money
or personal property, which renders a
person guilty of the crime OF embeZ-
Element is felonious conversion and
before you can convict the defendant
in this case you must be satisfied be-
yond reasonable doubt that the
money mentioned In the indictment.
or some part OF II. was feloniously
converted To his own use by the de-
PENDANT, with the intention at the
time 10 keep the same.
Il further charge and Instruct you
that the burden OF proof Is on the
Territory. ana II must establish by
evidence beyond "A reasonable doubt
that the defendant Il. II, Wright re-
ceiyed the money as charged In the
indictment by virtue OF his office as
chief clerk ~ the Department ~ Pub
lic Works and clerk ~ market ana as
such chief clerk ana clerk ~ market
was duly authorized 90 receive II by
law Ana, even though the party or
parties paying the money supposed
that he Was authorized, N he was MT
30 authorized YOU must aoqnit him
The jury retired promptly ai -four
u'rlork ana half an hour later requnnt'
~ that the indictment be given a.
them, which was done,
Jusi before sis o'clock the balm an'
n0uneed ilat the jury had asresd np'
on a verdict, Wrlshi With hlH sun
~ came lpin rouri ana tbs fpll1sins
verdict Mas handsd 90 ihs court W