The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1904-10-13
AFTERNOON SESSION.

came into Land Office one day witnes:
was there.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
| When the court resumed at 2 o. m.
some time was spent over the admis-
sibility of Stenographer Horner's evil
dence. The witness was examined in
the absence of the jury, with his
| transcript of notes of the interview, as
a basis for argument. Mr. Chilling
worth objected to the evidence on the
! ground that the conversation between
Peters and Boyd did not relate to the
| specific charges in the Indictment He
quoted ''Greenleaf on Evidence and
argued that the report with its dialogue
There was a shortage No, there
was not; Yes, there was''-showed
intimidation and threats enough to
bring the interview within the rule
against such evidence. From a United
States decision against evidence OBJ
tanned by the exertion of any improper
influence" he contended the evidence
should be excluded, as the defendant was
there in the custody of the High Sheriff.
his denials We're contradicted and a
repetition of the question if there was a
shortage implied an imputation that the
defendant was not telling the truth.
After considerable argument the court
, ruled the evidence admissible, Mr.. Chill
/ lingworth noting exceptions.
Mr.. Horner, the jury having been
called in, testified that Boyd, Peters
and himself were the only ones present
| in the tower room off the Secretary's
Office at the meeting on May 20, 1904
so far as he recollected. ]. W. Pratt
came in later. Boyd was not in custody
SO far as he knew. Peters asked Boyd
if there was any shortage in the Land
Office at the time he gave up the office
| of secretary and sub-agent to become
Commissioner. Boyd said there was
not and Peters asked him the question
repeatedly with variations, in substance
accusing him of lying. There was ex-
animation of Boyd on specific amounts.
Witness could not say if the sheriff was
present, thought he saw him immedi-
ately after the interview. Did not
know how Boyd got there; he was in
the room when Peters and witness en-
tered.
Witness was not allowed to read from
his report, though permitted to refresh
his memory therefrom. He was not
questioned on the contents beyond what
was necessary to prove that Boyd in
the interview denied that there was any
shortage.
]. w. Pratt testified he was present
at part of the conversation in the tower
room on May 20. Boyd was not under
arrest at the time.
Cross-examined, he knew Boyd was
not under arrest because after the in
terview the Governor censured the At
torney Generals Department for not
placing him under arrest. He. might
have arrived in company with the High
Sheriff. but was not under arrest.
Witness knew this from conversation
with the Governor in which he took
part.
A motion to strike out Mr.. Pratt's
evidence was denied.
The prosecution then rested.
EVIDENCE FOR DEFENSE.
Mr. Chillingworth, after making his
opening statement to the jury for the
| defense. called John Waterhouse.
Witness had searched that day, by re-
quest of counsel on both sides. for the
stub of the Haiku check but could not
find it, On cross-examination he said
the transaction took place before he
had engaged with Alexander & Bald
win.
A NJ. Brown, High Sheriff, recalled
| his having accompanied Boyd to the
Executive building on May last.
Boyd went there at his request, witness
/ having received a message from Sec
rotary Atkinson saying that the Gov
ernor wished to see Boyd. Went there
| with Boyd in a hack. Thought he had
asked Capt. Parker if he had seen Boyd
about the. streets. AT the Executive
building Boyd and he went into a small
room adjoining the Secretary's office.
Peters came in and witness went out.
| Might have heard a few. words but did
not recollect what they We're Came
back from the building and had a talk
with the Attorney General, as a result
| of which he arrested Boyd the same
day.
| Cross-examined-At the time of going
| to the Secretary's Office Boyd was not
under arrest.
| w. r. Sims, clerk of Circuit Court for
Judge Gear. was asked:
Have you an indictment on file
| against Stephen Mahau1u ?"
The Attorney General objected, chal-
longing the purpose of the question.
| Mr.. ChilIingworth said it was asked
| because there was an indictment
against Mahaulu for an offense of the
| same kind as the defendant was charg-
ed with, committed about the same
time. He wanted to test the credibility
of the witness.
Judge Robinson asked how could thai
test his credibility. If he was convicted
ii would be different.
Mr. Andrews said if the witness could
prove that Mahaulu was convicted foI
stealing that very money or even in
dicted for so doing, the evidence might
be competent. AS a matter of fact he
was indicted for stealing different
money, and the proposed evidence was
absurd
The objection was sustained.
THE DEFENDANT CALLED.
Edward s. Boyd. sworn-Am defend