The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1905-11-02

Of LETTERS
MutiIated Letter Book
ShoWn.-Letter File
Withdrawn.

Missing letters and mutilated copy
books formed the principal features IN
the Parker ranch case yesterday, the
proceedings being further enlivened by
some sharp differences of opinion which
developed between the "next friend .
and his attorney.
Kinney began the morning inquiry
with a searching examination as to the
whereabouts of the letters concerning
the Parker ranch matter referred to
in Lows letter of Oct. 29th, 1904.
There were references to three letters
from Hind, Rolph & Co. to the witness,
and two from the witness to Hind,
Rolph & Co., besides the copies of the
McCrosson-Hind correspondence which
had been enclosed. The witness had
been unable to find any of these and
thought they had all been destroyed ex-
eept the copies of the HindMcCrosson
letters which had never been returned
to him. Kinney called his attention
to the fact that his letter of July 11th,
1904, was still in his possession III
Oct. 10th, 1904, as he had made quo
tation from it. The witness explained
that it was his habit to go through his
private files occasionally and to destroy
any letters that did not seem to him
important.
With regard to the request in his
lo+f ho+ ha of ho aC
son-Hind correspondence be returned to
him, the witness testified that his In
tention upon receiving them had been
to return them to McCrosson. This was
because he did not consider that they
were his property and not because he
thought that they contained anything
which he did not wish left in the hands
of third persons.
With regard to the allegations of
Encouragement being included in the
bill, Low testified that the suggestion
came to him from Magoon and that he
had consented to it.
Eben Low in his efforts to get pos
Kinney.
"'No, I did not think so and would
not want to be coupled with that prop
osition," replied the witness.
Z" You knew when you went to Ma.
COON that he was attorney for Sam
Parker2"
Il did,
"And when he advised you to put
~ oh Of n u ont
bring the suit in the form of removal
proceedings, you consented at once?'
81 think ] did. -
Kinney then took up the statement
in Lows letter that he had acted up
on the urgent solicitation of those in
terested in the Hamakua Ditch Co. Nc
Crosson was the principal person re-
ferred to in this connection, and Nc
Crosson might have suggested that the
witness was the only available person
to bring the suit on account of his re-
lationship with the minor.
why was urgent solicitation neces-
sary?' asked Kinney.
because l was employed by Hind,
Rolph & Co. and would not go into the
thing without weighing it..
''Were they at that time soliciting
the agency of the Hamakua Ditch
Co. ~
1t was not developed at that time
so how could they be soliciting the
business?' answered the witness.
Kinney then read that portion of the
letter referring to Hind Rolph & Co.
soliciting the business and the witness
admitted that he might have had it in
mind.
Ibid you have it in mind that Hind.
Rolph & Co. might secure the agency
of the Parker ranch alsog' asked Kin
ney.
II did not" replied the witness.
Why did you have it in mind in re-
gard to the Hamakua Ditch Co. which
had no business and not as TO the Par
ker ranch, the agency of which was a
good thing7''
Do you mean that there was graft
in the proposition" asked the witness
"No,'' said Kinney. Eliminating
the graft, did you at any time prior to
bringing this suit entertain the idea
that out of your efforts in behalf of
the minor there might arise a legiti-
mate opportunity to get the agency of
the Parker ranch for Hind, RoIph &
Co. 80
''No," replied the witness. Gas r
have said, my first idea was to force
Carter to sell Paauhau and to grant the
right of way
Kinney took up the petition and in
CURED if there was any reason for
laying so much stress upon the friend
ship of the next friend for the minors
father and suppress all reference to his
connection with the Hamakua Ditch
GO: The witness replied that the pc
tItlon had been drawn by Magoon and
that the statements concerning his in
terest in the child were trne.
IT there is anything omitted,' he
added, ''or any fiourishes put in, it
is up to Magoon.'
Examination as to Magoon's $1,000
fee brought out new complications.
Inc witness testified that he had the
guarantee of the backing of the MEM
bers OF the Hamakua Ditch Co. be-
tore he ever approached Magoon. When
Magoon had stated that he wanted a
thousand dollars put on his desk, how
ever, Low replied that he did not have
"a