The Hawaiian gazette., 1905-11-03
|AhALyz|NG
OF LETTERS
srrom Thursdays Advertiser,

Missing letters anu muthdteu 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 searching examination as to the
whereabouts of the letters concerning
the Parker ranch matter referred TO
in Lows letter of Oct. 18th, 1SO4.
There were references to three letters
from Hind, Rolph g. Co. to the witness,
and two from the witness to Hind,
Rolph g. 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-
cept the copies of the Hind-McCrosson
letters which had never been returEeu
to him. Kinney called his attention
to the fact that his letter of July 18th,
1904, was still in his possession on
Oct. Goth, 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
letter that the copies of the McCros-
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
mismanagement being included in the
bill. Low testified that the suggestion
came to him from Magoon and that he
had consented to it.
"Did you think that it would help
Eben Low in his efforts to get pos
session of the Parker ranch?' asked
Kinney.
"No, 1 did not think so and would
mot want to be coupled with that prop
osition,' replied the witness.
"You knew when you went to Ma
COON that he was attorney for Sam
Parker9"
- did"
"And when he advised you to put
in charges of mismanagement and
bring the suit in the form of removal
proceedings, you consented at onceF'
81 think l did,
Kinney then took up the statement
in Low g 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
.sary7' asked Kinney.
"'Because / was employed by Hind
Rolph & Co. and would not go into the
thing without weighing il"
''Were they at that time soliciting
the agency of the Hamakua Ditcl
Cos"
cit was not developed at that time
80 how could they be soliciting thu
business2' answered the witness.
Kinney then read that portion of tn,
letter referring to Hind, Rolph & 20
soliciting the business and the witness
admitted that he might have had it il
mind.
"Did you have it in mind that Hind
Rolph & Co. might secure the agenc.
of the Parker ranch alsoT' asked Kin
ney.
~ did not, replied the witness.
"Why did you have it in mind in re
gard to the Hamakua Ditch Co. whicl
had no business and not as TO the Par
ker ranch, the agency of which was {
good thing?"
"Do you mean that there was graf
in the proposition2' asked the witness
"No,' said Kinney. Eliminating
the graft, did you at any time prior t.
bringing this suit entertain the ide
that out of your efforts in behalf o
the minor there might arise a legiti
mate opportunity to get the agency o
the Parker ranch for Hind, Rolph
Co2'
"No,' replied the witness. GAS
have said, my first idea was to fore
Carter to sell Paauhau and to grant tn
right of way.
Kinney took up the petition and in
+quired if there was any reason 70
laying so much stress upon the friend
ship of the next friend for the minor
father and suppress all reference to hi
connection with the Hamakua Ditc
w. ihc Nibhcoo iOPiicu ehot ehS ~
tition had been drawn by Magoon an
that the statements concerning his il
terest in the child were trne.
eff there is anything omitted" h
added, cor any fiourishes put in,
is up to Magoon."
Examination as to Magoon 500
fee brought out new complication
The witness testified that he had tn
guarantee of the backing of the nten
bers of the Hamakua Ditch Co. bt
fore he ever approached Magoon. Whe
Magoon had stated that he wanted
thousand dollars put on his desk, how
ever, Low replied that he did not hav
the money and made no reference I
his backing by the Ditch Co. The ne,
thing he knew McCrosson had com
to him and told him that Magoon wa
! willing to go ON with the suit, but b
did not know what occurred in the il
4 terval to change Magoon's mind an
went ahead with the litigation withor
inquiring. 1t was only after the cas-
had been brought to trial before Jude
Lindsay that he heard rumor tbs
j Sam parEar uoa no nua who ha