The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1907-12-24

His Signature Simulated by A.
S. Humphreys Fools lock
Carter.

Goo Wan Hoy's trial for misuse of
the mails came TO sudden and almost
comical conclusion with directed ver-
dict of acquittal yesterday afternoon.
]. o. Carter Jr., paying teller in
Bishop & Co.'S bank, was on the stand
for the United States in the forenoon.
His evidence was by way of identifying
the defendants handwriting. He veri-
/ ied the signature of Goo Wan Hoy to
three checks he had passed at the
bank.
Objection was made by the defense
/ to the admission of Carriers testimony
on the ground that he was not a COM
petent expert. Proof in support of the
objection was offered to be. made, with
the jury excused while it was being
| presented.
| At 1870 in the absence of the jury
and the challenged witness, evidence
was given under oath by A. S. Hum
phreys and J. 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 discredit 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 a 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.
Rawlins made a brave effort to over
throw the objection, but Judge Dole
ter's evidence.
During a 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.. Lightfoot 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 We're not Goo Wan Hoy's. 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-
ney said, that in any case OF identi-
y
ends If Justice may be defeate% by |
The employment of a professional |
f3rgcr 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
can call Judge Humphreys to that
stand and ask him under oath whether
II was he or Goo Wan Hoy who made
those pictures
Mr.. Robertson, replying, said that if
Carriers evidence was allowed to go
to the jury it would be necessary for
the defense to call witnesses to prove
that Carter did not recognize Goo Wan
Hoy's signature when presented to him
n the course of business. This would
De improper practice. The Massachu-
sets case was conclusive and simply
amounted to putting the brakes on the
growing practice of loading down the
of justice with a mass
Of so-called expert testimony to the
disgust of right-minded people.
Judge Dole suggested that the only
way for admitting the evidence of Car
ter was through an issue of veracity.
held to his original ruling
Then said Mr.. Breckons, eve will
have TO take a directed verdict, Your
Honor having ruled out comparisons
and our direct evidence as to Goo Wan
Hoy's handwriting"
"A directed verdict is all right" Mr..
Robertson nonchalantly observed
Mr.. Rawlins here rested the case for
the prosecution.
Mr.. Robertson thereupon moved that
he court direct the jury to return
verdict of acquittal.
Judge Dole. having had the jury call
I'd in. instructed them that, the prose-
tuition not having sufficient evidence
or conviction to present, they should
'eturn a verdict of not guilty. This
vas done and the defendant on a fur