The Hawaiian gazette., 1905-11-03

press copy book and began proceedings
by objecting to the production OF the
letter file on the ground that it infring-
ed the witnesses constitutional rights.
Kinney said that there was no question
before the court and that as a matter
of fact he proposed to begin his exam
nation of the press copy book.
"In that case" said Magoon, eve
will send this letter file back to the
Office and handed it to Lightfoot,
who took it from the court room.
81 want to put on the record
responded Kinney, "that upon my
electing to proceed with an examina-
ton of the press copy book, the letter
file was removed from the jurisdiction
of this court and the incident end
ed.
Kinney asked the witness to examine
the press copy book for the letters dat
ed July 18th, 1904 ana October 9TH,
1904, referred to in his letter already
in evidence.
Upon an inspection of the book it
was found that pages had been cut
out at points corresponding with both
the dates mentioned. The witness had
pages had been cut out or what the
missing letters referred to. He
thought they might have been cut out
to send to Hind, Rolph & Co. in San
Francisco, but Kinney pointed out that
while he had sent in his letter copy
of the letter of July 18th, no such rel-
erence was made to the letter Of Oct
ober 9TH.
With regard to the Hind-McCrosson
letters the witness was sure that he
had examined Kinds guarantee as to
the expense of the suit before he had
gone into the litigation, and that he
had subsequently borrowed the origin
ais from McCrosson to make certified
copies which were sent to San Fran
cisco last year. From that day to this
he had not seen or had in his posses
sion either of the letters or copies OF
them.
"Why," asked Kinney in surprise
''since this hearing began before Judge
Lindsay, didn't you show these copies
on the standf'
Il don't think 90" said the witness
"Then how did Magoon get the in
formation regarding the contents OF
these letters that he testified to'"
At this point Magoon spoke up and
repeated his statement that since the
hearing began before Judge Lindsay
Low had brought and showed hin
| copies of the letters.
Glow do you explain that7" asked
Kinney.
"He might have been mistaken or
might have been Mistaken was tn,
reply of the witness.
AS regards the refusal of Carter t,
| grant the right of way the witness sale
he had gone entirely upon McCrosson I
| statement. Kinney read at length Nc
| Crosson' IS evidence on this point to tn,
effect that the proposition had beer
sprung upon Carter one evening at his
house, and pressed for an immediate
answer and that next morning Garter
had said that he could not grant tn,
right of way cat that time.''
"Do you think that guardian
ought to be removed on that showing
for not granting the right of wayP
asked Kinney.
"Not on that showing" replied tn,
witness. eff McCrosson had made tina
| statement to me or i had known tina
he had not thoroughly interviewed Car
ter, or that Carter had postponed hi
decision, would not have entered in
to this litigation"
The grant of right of way which wa
finally made by Carter was then in
troduced in evidence, Kinney callin
attention to the elaborate stipulation
by which the minors interests wer
protected.
For the remainder of the Afternoon
the examination was on matters of dc
tail. The witness had not considere
the value of the landing, buildings o
other improvements on the land of Pa
auhau, but had based his opinion o
the fact that $124,000 was Carter
own figure. He had resigned from tn
ranch on Jan. list, 1892, and as tn
minor IS mother had not been marie
until afterwards, he admitted that hi
testimony as to their acquaintanc
during her married life must have bee
mistake.