The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1908-10-27
MORE LIGHT ON
THE GOO WAN
HOY INCIDENT
CONTINUED from Page One.)

! II was surprised upon opening the
door to see Cathcart. as l 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 I deem it unnecessary to
repeat here, among other things, that he
| had drawn worthless indictm emit
| against w lter G. Smith. Parentheti-
| cally, let he say that when the indict-
ment against Mr. Smith was returned
| by the grand jury, I glanced it over
merely for the purpose Of fixing bail
| Upon going to the courthouse the next
| day after Catheart s visit to me, 7
sent for the Smith indictment and saw
! that as Cathcart had stated, it was
worthless. The indictment is a 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. 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 I met
ha CT bn c4o
that he would make a settlement, ask
ed me to forbear until after the holt
days. This / agreed to do. Some time
after the new year [ again met him
and told him that he would have to
make settlement without delay. He
again promised to do so, and, a few
days later, came to my Office and pro-
posed to settle for $50 cash. This
offer | submitted to Goo Wan Hoy, who
declined the same, and [ thereupon
w1ote Catheart another letter, notify
ing him that his proposition was de-
clined and that I intended to sue the
firm of Cathcart & Parke, unless the
claim was settled by March l, 1905.
E'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 s wrong
doing, or of holding him to anything
more than a purely legal liability for
money of a client collected and mis-
appropriated by his partner
Suit Against Cathcart.
ffThe upshot OF the matter was that
in April, 1905, / instituted suit for
Goo Wan Hoy against Cathcart &
Parke for the money which Cathcart
had collected for account of his client,
Goo Wan Hoy, and had misappropri
ated. This suit dragged along until
January, 1906, 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 / 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. | then asked |
Catheart to make me proposition and |
he ofered $1S5, 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 L did not |
wish to compel payment from Mr..
Parke, that judgment against Cath
cart would be worthless and that I
would make up the deficiency to him
in other ways, he reluctantly consented
to it.
Compromise Accepted.