The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1907-12-24
GOO WAN HOY
SL|CKLY FREED

Goo Wan Hoy's trial for misuse o
the mails came TO a sudden and Amos
comical conclusion with directed yer
dict o. acquittal yesterday afternoon
]. o. Carter Jr.. paying teller Ii
Bishop & Co.'S bank. was on the stans
for the United States in the forenoon
His evidence was by way OF identifyin.
the defendants handwriting. He veri
fed the signature OF Goo Wan Hoy Z,
three checks he had passed at tn,
bank
Objection was made by the defenss
to the admission OF Carriers testimon,
on the ground that he was not a com
tpetent expert. Proof In support of tbs
objection was offered to be made. with
the jury excused while 1t was being
presented.
At 1880 in the absence of the Jury
and the challenged witness. evidences
was given under oath by A. s. Hum
phreys and ]. Lightfoot, OF Hoy's coun-
sci, that Judge Humphreys had signed
Goo Wan Hoy's name to the checks In
question. in the presence and with the
consent of Goo Wan Hoy. Defendant
had long been employed as clerk In
Judge Humphreys law office.
1t came out in evidence and argu-
ment that the attorneys for the de-
Tense, having become aware that Car
ter was to be called to prove the de-
PENDANTS handwriting, had laid the
trap described of palming Off the SIM
ulated signatures of Goo Wan Hoy
upon Carter so as TO d.scredit his ex-
pertness in court.
A. G. NJ. Robertson. the leading at
torney for the defense, upon the divul-
gence Of the successful plot, argued
THAT it would be highly improper, work
ing deception upon the jury. to allow
Carriers evidence to go to- the jury.
He quoted a Massachusetts decision
holding that a witness making a SINH
lar mistake to that of Carter with re-
spect to the defendants signature was
not qualified to give expert testimony.
Assistant District Attorney W. T.
Rawlirs made a brave effort to over
throw the objection, but Judge Dole
ruled against the admission of Car
ter's evidence.
During suspension of proceedings.
to give time for calling in the Jury,
District Attorney Breckons came in
Having not before taken part in the
trial-and asked to have the question
reopened so that he might offer his
views on the point. Mr.. Robertson. con-
sulting with Mr.. Iightfoot in Mr..
Humphreys momentary absence. OBJ
jected but Mr.. Humphreys returning
consented and the court heard Mr..
Breckons.
The District Attorney strongly urg-
ed that the offered evidence was COM
petent. 1t came to a question Of
veracity between Carter and the wit
nesses who had testified that the sig
natures were not Goo Wan Hoys. Mr.
Carter was not offered as an expert
but as a witness familiar with Goo
Wan Hoy's signature. Similarly, the
speaker would have no hesitation in
swearing to Judge Dole's signature,
and Judge Dole would be competent to
identify his (Breckons) signature.
1T comes to this" he District Attor-
Fey said, that in any case of identi-
fy.ng the handwriting of anybody the
ends If Justice may be defeate- by
rha employment of professional |
fSrgcr u give, limitations of the writ |
ing and thereby confuse the jury.
The fact is there are two men in /
town who write alike-Judge Hum
phreys and Goo Wan Hoy-and we
ian call Judge Humphreys to that
stand and ask him under oath whether
7 was he or Goo Wan Hoy who made
hose pictures
Mr.. Robertson, replying. said that IL
-arter's evidence was allowed to 20
o the Jury 1t would be necessary for
he defense to call witnesses to prove
hat Carter did not recognize Goo Wan
ioy's signature when presented to him
n the course of business This would
'e improper practice. The Massachn-
etts case was conclusive and simply
mounted to putting the brakes on the
rowing practice of loading down the
administration Of justice with a mass
( so-called expert testimony to the
isgust of right-minded people
Judge Dole suggested that the only
Tay for admitting the evidence of Car
ar was through an issue of veracity.
ut after some desultory argument he
ED to his original ruling. II
Then" said Mr.. Breckons, 1--WE will
ave to take a directed verdict. Your
lonor having ruled out comparisons
nd our direct evidence as to Goo Wan
loy's ha4dwriting'
"A directed verdict is all right Mr..
obertson nonchalantIy observed.
Mr. Rawlins here rested the case for
lie prosecution.
Mr.. Robertson thereupon moved that I
lie court direct the jury to return. a
srdict of acquittal
Judge Dole. having had the jury call
in, instructed them that, the prose- !
ition not having sufficient evidence
r conviction to present, they should J
turn a verdict of not guilty. This
as done and the defendant on a fur
er motion. was discharged.
THE AYREs CASE.