The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1908-02-01
WHAT CATHcARr SAYS.

A signed statement from the County
Attorney gives the following story of
his connection with the famous case
The Indictment in this case was
found in the early part of February,
1907, by the Attorney Generals Depart
n1ent of the Territory of Hawaii. The
Attorney General put the trial of the
case over two terms, the January term
and the April term, 1907. 1t came to
me as a case seven months old with
a number of other old cases, when I
assumed charge of all the criminal
work at the September term, 1907. The
case was set for trial October 8, 1907,
but as other cases were being tried the
case was reset to October 21st. Mr..
Thompson, attorney for the defendant,
being obliged to go to the Coast on
some very important matter. I con-
scented to reset the case for November
25th when Mr. Thompson expected to
be back. The case could not be tried
on that day as Mr.. Thompson did not
return in time, so it was passed to be
reset. In the early part of December,
I notified Mr.. Thompson that the case
must be set down at an early date,
as I did not propose to let the case
go over the term. A few days later,
Mr.. Thompson requested me to let the
case go over the term, but I refused.
He said that it would be impossible
for him to try the case as his partner
Mr.. Clemens was leaving and he could
not attend to all the business. I re-
fused to consent, and then he asked
me if I would allow the case to go
over the term if Mr.. Taylor. who was
the prosecuting witness, would agree.
I said NO" But under all the cir
.cumstances if Mr.. Taylor will ask me
to consent to your request, l will do
so. The same day Mr.. Taylor met me,
told me Mr.. Thompson had been to
see him, and that he (Taylor) would
ask. me to let the case go over as
Thompson wanted it to. Accordingly
the case went over the term When
cases were set at the present tenn,
the case of Territory V, Lee Let was
set for January 2Sth, the second week
of trials. On Friday the 18th, Mr..
Thompson, by showing made before
the court of other engagements in the
week commencing the 9th of January.
had the case continued to be set later
for trial. I was not present in court
at the time, but would have. consented
for the reason that ali criminal cases
as they come up are set down for trial
without first notifying the defense and
with the understanding that on proper
showing made in sufficient time, the
cases will be reset to some near sub
sequent day.
The Lee Let case was on the calen-
dar of the court during two successive
terms when the Attorney General was
prosecuting The Attorney General
found the indictment. and each law
officer should prosecute his own indict-
ments. 1 had at the opening of the
September term a number of old cases,
which were tried and cleared up, al
though a stale case is a difficult one
for prosecuting officer did not
intend to carry over any cases from
the September term and none would
have been carried over, with the ex-
ception possibly of the Lee Let case,
if it were not for our inability to try
cases at the close of the term. because
of the illness of Judge Lindsay. Few
cases were, however. carried over, and
among them the Lee Let case. The
above are the facts within my knowl-
edge concerning the Lee Let case.
JNO. w CATHCART.