The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1904-12-01
A STORY Of
GRAFT
Mahaulu Passes Buck
Up to One of
the Boyds.

IT may or may not De olfI1cuiL Tor the
jury to decide whether Stephen Maha-
ulu is guilty or not guilty when the
case goes to them, but his trial has
already established anew the fact made
glaringly obvious in the trial of E. S.
Boyd. That is, that for years public
money in the Department of Public
Lands has been regarded as private
booty to the extent, no more and no
less, that the stealings could be kept
.covered-both as to the amounts stolen
and the time of concealment. AS time
passed. too. the aggregate of the thefts
increased. When at length exposure
came the spectacle was presented,
which continued through the Boyd trial
and IS continuing through the Mahauiu
trial of the officials of the foul depart
ment swearing the guilt off upon each
other.
Stephen Mahaulu yesterday afternoon
took the stand in his own behalf, after
an unsuccessful effort of his counsel to,
secure directed verdict of acquittal as
to the heaviest count in his Indictment.
His direct evidence was to the effect
that the moneys for which he had given
receipts without credits therefor APP
pearfng in the Land Office books had,
as a matter of fact, been paid into the
Treasury of the Territory and not con-
verted by him to his own or any others
use but that such moneys had been
credited on the books to other accounts
than those where they belonged for
the purpose of covering up former
shortages The defalcations in ques-
tion, the defendant testified, were all
those OF his superior in office, Il. ,.
Boyd, who, according to the defend
ants testimony, possessed the com
bination of the safe from first to last
had access to it at all times and on dif-
ferent occasions, had taken money
from the safe Moreover, Mahaulu
swore he knew of a shortage in the
office from the time he entered it as
clerk in 1898 until he left it as sub
agent a few months ago.
Under cross-examination Mahaulu
acknowledged the entries and receipts
for moneys, made and given by him
respectively which belonged to the ac-
counts in which he had testified there
were shortages TO cover UP which the
moneys for which he was indicted had
been used. He also testified that GER
tain statements he made at an exam
ination in the Attorney Generals office
upon the discovery of the defa1cations,
which tended to incrirninate Boyd, Were
Tot true and must have been made by
him in the excitement under which at
that time he was laboring. His cross
examination was still in progress when
the court rose for the day.
MOTION FOR ACQUITTAL
Mr.. Thompson, before opening for the
defense. moved that the court instruct
the jury TO return d verdict of not
guilty as to the second count of the in
dictment. relating to $4500 paid by the
waianae Company, because ID the de-
fendant never received the money, (2)
it did not appear that he converted to
his own use or to others use the said |
$500, (S} no demand was made on him. |
"a it did not appear that the sum
was not converted by consent of the I
owner and (5) there was no evidence
of any money received by the defend /
ant from the Waianae Company. Mr. {
Thompson argued out each point of his
motion.
Mr. Prosser in reply said he did not
care whether the defendant got that
money or not or who cashed the check,
but the prosecution had evidence in de-
PENDANTS own handwriting that he got
$500 which came out of that check and
could prove intention to embezzle from
the fact that he made the entry of the
5000 before he received the money. On
the point of admissions going to the
jury the Deputy Attorney General. on
the authority of the Supreme Court.
contended that where there are cir
cumsta noes in a criminal case which
the defendant might explain in his own
behalf and he did not choose to ex-
plain them, the fact might go to the
Jury that he declined to explain the
1t was for the jury to
decide If they believed. beyond rea-
sonable doubt, that ATahsrlu received
the money. The prosecution did not
claim ernbezzlement of the check but of
the money Mr.. Prosser pointed out
that there were two receipts numbered +;
1906 given by Mahaulu, one of which !
for. s450o was not credited on the books
and the other for s516 was credited on /
he books
Mr.. Thompson came again, arguing
that there was still a hiatus. There
vas no proof that the money went into
hands.
Judge Gear suggested the event of s
he Jury's finding that the money could
Continued on Page 3D. Ia