The Hawaiian gazette., 1908-10-27
MORE LIGHT ON
THE GOO WAN
HOY INCIDENT
Continued from Page ono.)


door TO see Cathcart, as / had not, at
that time, been on friendly terms with
him for several months. During the
course of the conversation which fol.
lowed between us, he stated many
things which l deem it unnecessary to
repeat here, among other things, that he
had drawn worthless Indictment
against Walter G.. Smith. Parentheti
cally, let me say that when the indict.
ment against Mr.. Smith was returned
by the grand jury, l glanced it over
merely for the purpose of fixing bail.
Upon going to the courthouse the next
day after Cathcart's visit to me,
sent for the Smith Indictment and saw
that. as Cathcart had stated, 1t was
worthless. The indictment is court
record, and any lawyer can easily yer.
ify Cathcart's statement that he drew
worthless indictment, by inspecting
that document.
Asked Humphreys Not to be Hard on
| Him.
! "But, TO return to the Goo Wan Hoy
matter, Cathcart on the occasion Of
this visit to my house referred to that
affair, admitted his conversion of the
money and asked me not to be too
hard on him. The Goo Wan Hoy
claim drifted along until 1904, when
Goo Wan Hoy appealed to me to do
something for him. l then wrote Cath
cart the letter which was published in
the Advertiser this morning, dated De.
cember 16, 1904, in which I plainly
charged him with embezzlement.
Shortly after writing this letter met
Cathcart on the street, who, stating
| that he would make a settlement, ask.
ed me to forbear until after the Holt
days. This I agreed to do. Some time
after the new year l again met him
and told him that he would have to
make settlement without delay. He
again promised to do so, and, few
days later came to my Office and pro.
posed to settle for $3.50 cash. This
offer I submitted to Goo Wan Hoy, who
1 declined the same, and / thereupon
wrote Cathcart another letter, notify
ing him that his proposition was de-
clined and that 1 intended to sue the
firm of Cathcart & Parke. unless the
claim was settled by March /, 1905.
"This letter, dated February 81,
1905, was published in the Advertiser
of yesterday morning In this con-
nection, let ME say that there has
never been the slightest intention on
my part of imputing to Mr.. Parke
any knowledge of Cathcart IS wrong
doing. or of holding him to anything
more than purely legal liability for
money of a client collected and mis-
appropriated by his partner.
Suit Against Cathcart.
"The upshot OF the matter was that
in April, 1905, / instituted suit for
Goo Wan Hoy against Cathcart s.
Parke, for the money which Cathcart
had collected for account of his client,
Goo Wan Hoy, and had misappropr-
ated. This suit dragged along until
january 1905, when in conversation
with Cathcart he called my attention
to the fact that / had been instru-
mental in having the partnership be-
tween himself and Mr.. Parke formed
and said now ought you to stick him =
felt that 1 ought not to require Mr..
Parke. to pay the money and made up
my mind to retire from the case be.
fore | would do so. l then asked
Cathcart to make me proposition and
he of'ered $lS5, in complete settlement
of the matter, which sum / assumed
would be paid in cash. reported to
Goo Wan Hoy, who was averse to max.
ing the settlement on the terms stated,
but upon my statement that / did not
wish to compel payment from Mr..
Parke, that judgment against Cath
cart would be worthless and that /
would make up the deficiency to him
in other ways, he reluctantly consented
to it.
Compromise Accepted.
~ notified Cathcart that his propo-
sition to pay $lS5 would be accepted,
whereupon he came to my Office and
stated that he would give his note at
four months. / had, as before stated,
expected cash, but as the affair was a
disagreeable one, and being anxious to
close it up, consented to take his
note. He never at any time stated to
me that he was making a settlement
because domestic Affections required
him to go to San Francisco He
knows very well that, even if had
refused him continuance for such
reasons, any Judge would have granted
it to him upon that showing.
"And right here let me say that
early in 1905, when he was anxious to
settle for $3.50, there was no pretense
on his part of domestic Affections,
J nor of contemplated absence from Ho'
nolulu.
Why the Note was to Humphreys.
Gle says he executed the note to
me because he did not want anything
more to do with Goo Wan Hoy. The
utter absurdity of that statement
must be apparent to any reasonable
: person, who will stop to think, that by
my mere endorsement of the note in
blank, without recourse, and the deliv-
cry of the same to Goo Wan Hoy, the
title to the note would vest absolutely
in him, and Cathcart would still have
something more to do with him. The
Sruth is that Cathcart himself shrewd-
ly suggested that, as he was paying a
less sum than that claimed by Goo
i Wan Hoy, and that as he (Cathcart)
could not legally absolve himself from
a debt of $537 by paying $ls5, he pro.
ferred to make the note to me; that a
note given directly to a creditor for a
sum less than the amount due could
not be pleaded as payment, but could
be so pleaded if the note were given
to third party. This is a technical
> -