The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1904-12-16
GOES NOW
TO The JURY
Close of Emmett
Mays Trial
Today.
A Writ of Assistance
Against James
Brown.
Covenant and Foreclosure Suits
Filed - Probate and
Other Items.


Closing addresses of counsel to the
jury in the trial of Emmett May for
embezzlement will begin at 10 a. m.
before Judge Robinson. Shortly after
D. m. yesterday the defendants case
was closed and the prosecution put on
no rebuttal
When it came to discussing instruc-
lions of the court by counsel. the jury
were excused and, the argument de-
veloping into a protracted wrangle,
they were called in again after 4
O'Clock and excused over night.
A. S. Humphreys, W. G. Cooper, w.
r. Harrington, Edgar L. Lewis and c..
M. Cooke in the morning testified to
the good character of the defendant.
Mrs. Silva and Louis r. Medeiros gave
evidence of conversations in which Mrs.
Bettincourt spoke well of Mays treat
ment of her.
own behalf His direct examination
was still in progress when recess was
taken from II to o'clock. He went
over the already familiar story Of OBJ
tanning proofs OF Bettfncourt's death,
his going on the Widows administered
ton bond. his investment of the $1,000
insurance money in his own planning
mill stock and his offer of the certif-
icate of stock to Mrs. Bettincourt after
the mill enterprise had turned out I'M
satisfactory. Previously he had kept
the stock as security for his signature
on the bond
May told about the consultation Mrs.
Bettincourt had with him. Dutra be-
ing present, when he proposed to in
vest her money. According to him the
woman and her friend were very well
pleased at the offer. Later Mrs. Bet
tincourt interviewed him by herself,
asking him not to let Dutra know
where her money was invested because
she owed Dutra money This he
promised.
Defendant proceeded with his story
in the afternoon When he found that
Mr.. Biting had written to the home
Office of the Germania Life Insurance
Co. about the Bettincourt policy, he
went to that attorneys office and call
scoundrel.'' He went to Billings office
when he heard the lawyer was bring
ing the matter before the grand jury,
and told Biting that he knew he (Bit-
ting was not acting honestly. Biting
told him he was only acting on the
civil side and had gone before the
grand jury merely to give his evidence.
Cross-examined by Attorney General
Andrews. the defendant said he was
president of the Pacific Mill Co., an
swering too quickly for Mr.. DUNES
objection. which was sustained and the
answer struck out. He did not tell
Mrs. Bettincourt the Pacific Mill Co.
was a good thing, but spoke of "a
going to form mill company. This
was before the insurance draft came
The Pacific Mill Co. was formed.
Objection was sustained to question
of who the officers of the Pacific Mill
Co. were, also to the question if it ever
paid any dividends.
Mr.. Andrews showed the certificate
of stock in the company to Mrs Bet
tincourt and defendant said it was in
his possession until the time of this
trial. Objection was sustained to
question if all of the company's stock
was in defendants possession Also
Defendant said ''the officers issued
that certificate. All of the handwriting
in it excepting the signature of w. P.
Barry, secretary, was his own He
denied he testified that Dutra and Mrs
Bettincourt went to his office and
asked him to keep the money. When
the draft came from New York he de-
posted it in his own name. Mrs. Bet
tfncourt told him to. He knew that
the money belonged to the estate and
that the estate was not settled.
You knew that it was trust money!"
Objection TO the question was sus-
tanned.
Defendant knew that the money was
payable to the estate of Jose A. Bet
tincourt On objection to next CUES
ton being overruled. he said he sun
posed that the draft and the mon
ey that was to come therefrom belong
ed TO Mrs. Bettincourt.
And to the creditors?"
I suppose so.''
Objection was sustained to questions
about the Kaimuki lots. which the At
torney General claimed were proper be
cause Mrs. Bettincourt testified she did
not accept the offer of the lots as she
found that they did not belong to Nav.
objection was sustained to the ques-
tion II there was any legal connection
between the Honolulu Investment Co.
and the Pacific Mill Co. This was ask
ed with reference to Mays offer to
Mrs. B. of a house belonging to the
III. 1. Co. rent free until he could re-
deem her Pacific Mill Co. stock. Objec-
ton was also sustained to the cues
ton of how long defendant was ac-
quainted with Dutra before the Incl
dents of this case.
call Dutra." Mr. Dunno exclaimed
over and over again.