The Hawaiian gazette., 1906-06-19
DENIAL IS
SWEEPING

"'ff . s"iiiH ""F Whhf m answer
10 The information filed against him bv
the Attorney General 10 procure his
disharmeni lie denies every state
meni that implies either double deal
ing or fraud. From neither !. Kaele.
nakula nor anyone else did he ever re-
eeive a document pnTporting to be the
signed written consent OF property
holders TO the issuance of liauor
license TO g. NJ. Tai. Nor was he ems
ployed by Kaelemakule or ANYBODY else
to take the Acknowledgements of the
signers of such written consent. or 10.
do anything whatever about the secur-
ing of such license from the Treasurer
of the Territory.
He denies that any document pur-
porting TO be the written consent of
property-owners at Kailua was origin
ally made out by him, or by ANYBODY
under his advice or concurrence. in the
name of c. NJ. Tai or for Tai 's benefit.
He denies that Kaelemakule. with
bis knowledge or consent, ever pre-
senied written consent for c. NJ. Tai
to any person for signature. Also he
denies that he delivered to Kaelema-
kule, or authorized the circulation by
that person, Of any such document
wherein the name of G. NJ. Tai was
written, either in lead pencil or other.
wise, as the name Of the person apply
ing for license.
Then he denies that the document in
question, after it had been signed, was
altered by him, or by his authority,
knowledge or consent, by the erasure Of
Tai's name and the substitution there
for of the name of Chank Sun. Also
he denies that any written consent to
the issuance of license to Tai was
delivered to him by Kaelemakule, or
received by him, for the purpose that
he as notary public should take the
Acknowledgements of the signers.
Mills denies that on or about the 1st5
day of July, 1905, or ct all, he erased
from the document the name of C. M.
Tai, and that he wrote or caused to be
written therein the name of Chang Sun.
He admits the acknowledgment of
signatures to the exhibit filed in court.
and the truth of the a legations that
the signers of the consent never con-
| sented that the name of the proposed
gl.n h L.. -
Tai to Chang Sun, but he denies that
the signers never acknowledged their
signatures before him, alleging that
| they did so and that at the time when.
they did so the name of the proposed
| licensee in the document was Chang
Sun and not c. NJ. Tai. Once more he
denies the changing of the name either
| by him or anybody else with his au-
| thority, knowledge or consent.
The respondent admits that he was
personally acquainted with seven of
the signers whom he names and unac-
! quainted with the others, and that nei-
ther Kaelemakule nor anyone else in
z
for the purpose of acknowledging their.
signatures. II was for the purpose of
convenience and to avoid the necessity
of unnecessarily extending his certif-
cate of the Acknowledgements, that he
included in his certificate all of the
signers of the document as having been
introduced to him by Kaelcmakule.
| Mills declares he well knew that Tai
did not desire and would not permit a
liquor license to be issued in his name,.
but at the same time he knew that Tar
was not named in any document pur-
porting to be consent to the issu-
ance of license to c. NJ. Tai. He de-
mics that he knew at any time that the
parties signing had not consented to
the issuance of license to Chang Sun,
and alleges that they all acknowledged
their signatures to Chang Suns appli-
cation. While admitting that Tai and
Sun are different persons, he denies
that he knew Of the distinction Of iden-
tity between them AZ the date when ho
certified to the Acknowledgements.
Lastly, the respondent denies having
committed any fraud or violation Of
law In the matter, and denies that he
delivered Chang Suns petition to the
Treasurer. lie says he sent II by mail
from Kealakehua postofce, addressed
IA q Akin Honolulu and acknowledges
that license Of the fifth class for the
sale Of Intoxicating liquors was there
after issued 10 Chang Sun.
Deputy Attorney General Prosser
having rested the prosecution yester-
day morning, the supreme Court, on
motion of q, W, Ashford for respond
eni, continued the disbarment hearing
until june 22 TO enable the respondent