The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1908-06-09

nt I&SS ISt1 CdcE Will 20 Id the luT
this morning, the defense having con.
cluded its case yesterday afternoon
putting the defendant on the stand tc
testify in his own behalf. His evidence
which is all that the defense had tc
offer in answer to the case of the prose
cution, was to the effect that he had
loaned the Chief Detective the $50
which Taylor stated that he received
as earnest money for large bride, had
loaned him the money as personal
favor after having only met him twice
before, and when Taylor offered no Sc
curity for the return of the sum. In
spite of the short acquaintance he re-
fused to take any receipt for the $50,
excusing his unbusinesslike methods by
stating to the court that no receipts
were necessary between good friends.
So far from wanting to bride anyone,
Lee Let stated that Taylor importuned
him to start a gambling hui, with him
(Taylor) as silent partner. He men
toned that Taylor had modestly asked
him to pay him $1400 week as his
share of the hui s gains, but that he had
Indignantly spurned the proposal to
have anything to do with Taylor and
his schemes for easy money. He did
lend him the fifty, however, without
security or receipt.
DIRECTED VERDICT DENIED.
Frank Thompson whipped the froth
of the case in a lengthy argument,
an instructed verdict of acquittaI. He
in Of Trr.tc
testimony as a basis for his argument,
stating that Taylor's position as an
executive officer had not been shown;
that he had himself solicited bride
and commenced the criminal proceed
ing, thus clearing Lee Let; that if any
bribe had been given, it was, accord
ing to Taylor's evidence, not to in
f1uence his official actions. but to in
fiuence him into interceding with
others, and that there was nothing to
show in the evidence that Taylor had
agreed not to arrest Lee Let and Lee
Tong, nor had either of them asked
for any promise of non-arrest.
Thompson quoted a score of deci-
sions and presidents as fast as Glenn
ons handed him the authorities. max
ing out a good plea on the specious
grounds chosen. Judge Robinson, how
ever, cut through the froth by an
nouncing, as soon as Thompson had
concluded, that he would rule against
the motion without bothering with any
argument against it.
EVIDENCE FOR DEFENSE.
After the noon recess, the evidence
for the defense was presented, Thomp-
no dana rr
from the usual custom and reserve his
main witness for the last to allow the
business men subpoenaed to leave as
early as possible. The witnesses were
to show the reputation of the de-
PENDANT.
George H. Robertson of Brewer &
Co. testified that he had had dealings
with the Yuen Chong Company for fit
teen years, although not personally
with Lee Let. He had never heard
Lee Let's honesty or integrity ques-
toned.
r. r. Reidford, manager of the
Bishop Trust Co., had frequent bust
ness dealings with Lee Let. He stated
that Lee Let's reputation for honesty
and integrity was good. On cross-ex-
animation he stated that the question
of his honesty was discussed by the
officers of the trust company.
Nanny Phillips also testified as to
Lee Let's good character.
LEE LET'S STORY.
Lee Let followed the ones who had
given him such a good name, his APP
pearance being followed by an ex-
change of remarks between the Dep
uty Attorney General and Thompson
on the relative truthfulness of the
coming and the past witnesses.
The defendant testified that he was
manager of the Yuen Chong Company
for fifteen years The business of the
firm amounted to about 800, 900 year.
He met A. P Taylor, he said, on
February 5. Taylor came in of his
own accord with Ayres and Lee Tong.
He did not know what for. They help
ed themselves to some liquor, when
Ayres and Lee Tong went out. Then
Taylor said to him: You had better
start up some gambling games. You
had better help me out and get up a
gambling hui" Il was surprised and re-
fused the proposition. Taylor went
into details with me. He said he
wanted s1400 a week, for which he
would prevent arrests ana Would see
that the police department would pro-
tect the gamblers. pay fines and at
torney fees and all other details.
After the conversation he told me
to think over it. 1t was great
chance He said he would come the
next day.
He came the next day and asked
me If | had decided to help him.
didn't argue with him. On this day he
asked me for a loan. He asked me
for 500 and I didn't give it to him
Then he came again for loan on
tbs 9Th, and asked me to help him, as
someone was pushing him hard for
debt. I gave him $50 and he promised
to pay it back.
ION that occasion he spoke again
of gambling, asking me to get up a
gambling hui. | refused. I never had
anything to do with a gambling hui. |
I never told him I would give him
any sum a week, s1400 or 5000 or any.
I never gave him $50 on his promise
not to arrest ME nor Lee Tong for
gambling. The only money I ever