The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1908-10-27

without result, and Andrews advised
Goo Wan Hoy that the case was one
Of embezzlement on the part of Cath
cart and recommended presenting it to
the grand jury Is that possiblei
is il possible that Lorrin Andrews rec.
commended presenting this case to the
grand jury when the same Lorrin An.
drews,N who was/ appointed Attorney
General in 1908, offered to me the dep
Who again, before Mr.. Pros
ser came in there, offered to me the
Who was always my
friend and on friendly terms with me,
who gave me business from the Attor-
ney General IS Office and who, in sew.
eral instances for particular cases, APP
pointed me Deputy Attorney Generali
Is 1t possible that he did all those
things, yet knowing that was an en-
bezzleri (Applause.)
Humphreys Took Chances.
Is it possible that Judge Hum
phreys, who is bringing this suit for
$5375O, would have settled the suit as
he did, if there was any embezzlement
n righteous claim because there was
no security on my notef He was TAX
ing my note for $1S5 and leaving HIM
self in no better position. / could sec,
it would be possible if l had brought
around the cash to him, thinking that
that was all he could get, that he
might have taken that, but he was TAX
ing the note. Now, is that possible If
the charge that Goo Wan Hoy makes
is true, and there is no Confederation
of it by Mr.. Castle, as this paper saysi
All Mr.. Castle knows / have told you.
He remembers that he settled the mat.
ter for $500. He remembers that the
old couple were dead at the time and
he has those records in his Office of
those two entries which show a pay
ment to me at the utmost of 1905 and
that is all he knows about it. Now,
don t know as il is necessary to take
up any more time with that case. 1t
has taken longer than / thought.
Second Embezzlement Charge.
Now we come to the second charge
of Mr.. Goo Wan Hoy. This is where
he charges me with having embezzled
500. He says that in 1899 / brought
suit against George McDougall, and
secured Judgment for 500 which 1 pro
ceeded to put in my pocket, and he
never learned about it until three
years afterwards and then confronted
me and confessed it and 1 told him
1 was hard up; there is no truth in
any of those things, gentlemen, except
that one fact that / was hard up
whether | told him that or not, don Y
know, but 1 was. Oaughter.) That
suit has escaped my memory. When ii
was first sprung on He / could no more
recollect it than any of you gentlemen
who had never had anything to do
with either Mr.. McDougall or M. Goo
Wan Hoy, but here is gentleman who
was sued and against whom a 500
Judgment was obtained and he don y
remember anything about it. Read
ing letter of G. w. McDougall.
"Honolulu, October 20, 1908.
"Mr. John W. Cathcart, City.
"Dear Sir: / have no recollection
If any suit either in 1899 OF at any
time, brought by G. w. Alloy or Goo
Wan Hoy against me. Not remember
ing any action, I, of course, do not
remember any Judgment for 800 or any
other sum secured by Alloy or Goo
Wan Hoy against me.
at remember having some dispute
with him over the rentals received for
= building in Kailua, but 1 do not
remember that there was any suit over
It at all.
"Of course, it may be possible that
there was a suit, but if so it has en-
tirely escaped my memory. Very truly
yours,
"(Sgd) G. w. McDoUGALL."
Memories Defective.
So the defendant in the action and
myself have forgotten all about it; but
there was such a suit, and sent down
word to Kailua there to find out about
it and they telegraphed me that there
was such suit, and this is the cable
/ got about it. The answer is that
there was: eyes, judgment given on
April 3, 1899, for $S4.65, Judgment not
satisfied" (Applause.) Now, mind
you, he says that this $40 note was
given for WHAT For this 500 judg
ment which turns ont to be $34.55, and
for $50 which 1 had borrowed from
him. Now, gentlemen, that shows the
measure of his truth and veracity
(Applause.) But there is suit and
there is Judgment, and 1t may have
been paid. L have recollection OF
trying case there for him, of getting
money from it and of paying him what
money had there at that time in Kai
lua. / used to deposit there will
Hackfeld Co. used to get mos
of it fin silver, and it was all bulky
and used to deposit over there, ant
] remember going into their store, get
ting out the money and paying Goo
Wan Hoy, whatever that suit wal
about, the difference between that and
my attorneys fees, and I have wit
ness to that effect. The only thing is
now, have got to find out whethe,
that was the McDougali suit or not
and / haven't been able to do that
vet. 1t will take quite while. Now
think. gentlemen, that to great ex
tent that disposes Of Alloy, and we
come now to the Chiffon matter.
The Chiffon Affair.
They say there that 1 pocketed the
retaining fee of $50 and embezzled t.
my own use the $40 given me for the
costs of the appeal. Now, Mr.. Rawlins
who was acting as Mr., Chilton's attor
ney employed me. or rather he asso
ciated me with him in the defense OF
the boy, who was charged with abduct
ing a girl OF course with the consent