The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1908-06-05
TAYLOR TELLS
LEE LET STORY
TO THE JURORS
Efforts of the Defense to Show Fatal Variance
Between the Indictment and Proof Offered
---Thompson's Cross Examination.

The taking of testimony in the Lee
Let case began yesterday morning be-
fore Judge Robinson and the jury
which had been secured the day be-
fore The Indictment against Lee Let
was read and then Deputy Attorney
General Larnach briefly outlined what
the prosecution would prove. This
statement was brief and merely that
Taylor, at Lee Let's initiative, had had
several interviews with Lee Let N
which the latter had proposed that
Taylor, for a consideration of 5000 a
week, should allow a hui of which Lee
Let claimed to be the spokesman carry
on gambling games and had paid him
$50 on account of this purpose.
A. P. Taylor was the first witness
called. He testified that he was a po-
lice officer and Chief of Detectives.
He had been commissioned, but the
original commission had been mislaid.
A copy was offered in evidence.
Thompson narrowly cross-examined
Taylor as to how the commission was
mislaid. He then objected to its in
PRODUCTION on two grounds-frst, that
the non-production of the commission
yhad not been sufficiently explained,
iand. second, that the commission Gre
ated Taylor a police constable" while
the Indictment charged the defendant
with bribing a police officer" wh1ch
he said was a totally different thing
Deputy Attorney General Larnach
replied that the indictment charged the
bribing of an executive officer, to wit:
a police officer" and that the words
police officer might be treated as sur
nlusage. To this Thompson replied
that in that case the indictment would
have heen demurrable as not specific
cally alleging the crime charged' Aoi
the Attorney General was an execu-
tive officer, and though an Attorney
General had been attempted to De
,eached in this way. this was not that
case Deputy Attorney General Sut-
tom nroduced a decision from the Fiji
teenth Hawaiian Reports in which the
nolice officer and police constable were
s,-,onvmous. A search disclosed the
fact. however, that this decision was
IN q civil case where the question was
the sufficiency of service of civil proc
es a,a that II was at a time when
tho statute spoke indiscriminately OF
,oIice officers and constables, while the
county act under which the present
seemed
only for police officers,
Indpe Robinson examined Taylor
further to determine just what search
rod heen made for the original COM
mission. 1t seems that Taylor, before
leaving for san Francisco, had gath-
cred mn a large number of papers OF
vaIue to nut in a safe place during
his absence. He had intended to take
his commission with him to san FRAN
cisco as a means of his own ldenuh-
-&ation there and while he had seen
if when gathering up his papers, ne
could not say positively that ne hao
actually taken it to San Francisco.
Iu3pe Robinson ruled that the copy
could not be introduced at this tlIne
because If had not been shown that
sufficient search had been made for the
orieinal As to the second point
whether there was fatal variance oe-
tween the indictment and the coiiliiils
sion, it was not passed on, anu Seems
now not to be important, as Ads ioA
was temporarily withdrawn anu oie
iff Iarkea was called, and he testlIleu
that he had appointed Taylor poli'e
officer.
TAYLOR A POLICEMAN.
nj a
Thompson wanted to cross-exaI1liIle :
at this point to find out If ne hao
issued n commission, but this was oo-