The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1905-11-02
VERDICT IN
TWO PARTS
One Defendant Guilty
and Jury Hung on
Two Others.

AT noon yesterday the jury Trying
three Japanese for assault with a dan
gerous weapon retired TO consider their
verdict. In half an hour they came in
for further instructions, which were
given by Judge Robinson. They retir-
ed again, but before agreeing We're sent
down town for lunch. Finally they
rendered a verdict finding Yunikishi
Yano guilty and their disagreement as
to Nishibayashi and Fugiyeda.
cO.OsosOsOoOeO ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
inauiring. 1t was only after the case
had been brought to trial before Judge
Lindsay that he heard rumor that
Sam Parker was the enc who had
agreed to stand good for the fee.
Kinney gave notice II Low to pro-
duce his private copy hook and letter
file at two CLOCK. Low objected Wig
orously, and when reminded that Ma
COON was running his case, retortei :" If
my attorney does n n object on my Re
half [ will change my attorney
After the noon recess, Magoon aP-
peared with a black letter file and a
press copy book and began proceedings
by Directing 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 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 examlna-
tion 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 and 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
no present recollection of when the
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 a copy
of the letter of July 18th, no such req
erence was made to the letter of Oct
ober 9TH.
With regard TO the Hind Me rosson
letters the witness was sure that he
had examined Hind s 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,
g since this hearing began before Judge
Lindsay, didn' you show these copies
to Mr.. Magoon, as testified to by him
on the stand2'
q don t think so,'' said the witness
"Thep how did Magoon get the in
formal n regarding the contents of
these letters that he testified to2''
AT this point Magoon spoke up and
repeated his statement that since the
hearing began before Judge Lindsay,
Low had brought and showed him
copies of the letters.
- How do you explain that7' asked
Kinney.
He might have been mistaken or l
might have been Mistaken was the
reply of the witness.
As regards the refusal of Carter to
grant the right of way the witness said
he had gone entirely upon McCrosson 8
statement. Kinney read at length Nc
Crosson s evidence on this point to the
effect that the proposition had been
sprung upon Carter one evening at his
house, and pressed for an Immediate
answer and that next morning Carter
had said that he could not grant the
right of way cat that time
''Do you think that guardian
ought to be removed on that showing
for not granting the right of way?"
asked Kinney.
mot on that showing" replied the
witness. eff McCrosson had made that
statement to me or I had known that
he had not thoroughly interviewed Car
ter, or that Carter had postponed his
decision, [ would not have entered in
to this litigation.''
The grant of right of way which was
finally made by Carter was then in
troduced IN evidence, Kinney calling
attention to the elaborate stipulations
by which the minor s interests were
protected.
For the remainder of the afternoon
the examination was on matters of de-
tail. The witness had not considered
the value of the landing. buildings or
other improvements on the land of Pa
auhau, but had based his opinion on
the fact that $4,000 was Carter
own figure. He had resigned from the
ranch on Jan. 1st, 1892. and as the
minor s mother had not been married
until afterwards. he admitted that his
testimony as TO their acquaintance
during her married life must have been
q mistake.
DO NOT BE INFLUENCED.
Never hesitate to say ono" to your