The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1910-12-27
City Attorneys Statement Now
Stands Against Denial of
Twelve Men.
NO PREJUDICE ESTABLISHED
Lane Case Is Continued to Next
Month While Attorneys
ReCuperate.
CFrom Saturdays Advertiser. }

Denying emphatcally every state.
ment made by City Attorney John w,
Cathcart, in his latest pose as star wit
ness in the defense of the man he re-
fused to prosecute, twelve former grand
iurymen, yesterday, testified as to the
alleged violations of their oaths.
In NOT one point was Cathcart s
sweeping statements sustained in any
degree whatever, and the prejudice
which the latter asserted was manifest.
ed by the grand jury towards Lane was
shown TO exist only towards the city
attorneys department, when it existed
at all.
After all the evidence had been tax.
en-, f. 3. McStocker, foreman of the
"fghting grand jury. requested the
court IS permission to address it, saying
that he had been asked to call the
Judge IS attention to the malicious and
unprovoked attack made by Cathcart
upon the jury. Judge Cooper refused
to listen. however, as the case is not
yet completed
Continuance Granted.
1t was continued until the third of
January, Douthitt requesting the con.
tinuance on the plea that he needed
a vacation. Lorrin Andrews, who is
prosecuting. asked that as the court had
been fair with the defendant thus far
as regards continuances, the trial be
proceeded with as quickly as possible
on that date.
E. A. Douthitt and Leon Straus, as
attorneys for Lane, practically defend
ed Cathcart in his statements, Judge
Cooper taking the direct examination
of the former grand jurymen into his
own hands.
C. II. Bailey was the first witness
yesterday afternoon, being asked as TO
whether he had stated, as Cathcart said
some grand iurymen had stated, "that
there ought to be law, or that the
law ought to be strained, or that law
or no law, Lane ought to be more
severely punished. y
Emphatic Denial.
Bailey denied that he had said il
or that he had heard it said, either by
a grand juryman or any one else. The
same formula was put to every witnes!
who followed him and was answered
to the same effect with varying degrees
of emphasis.
In response to cross.eXamination b.
Douthitt, he stated that he had no
been Influenced by the newspaper ac
counts of the case, that he did not hea
any one say that Lane ought to b.
punished or that he ought to be hung
and that he had not formed any opinion
as to whether the sentence imposed o.
the vagrancy charge was commensurate
with the offense or not.
James w. Robertson was the mex
witness, adding to testimony that wa
practically the same as Bailey's, tn
fact that Milverton had told the gran
Jury several times that the Lane cas-
had been disposed of and that the jur.
had no jurisdiction over it. He state
still further that he derived some o
his information concerning the cas-
from the newspapers and he though
that Lane might have been guilty o
a higher offense.
Source of Information.
The defense attempted to make cap
ital ont of the last statement but de
rived only the additional information
that the witness wanted to get informa
tion to satisfy his mind and that h
finally got that information from tn
attorney general.
AS lulS 0lQ not bNGHh W Dt pdlAASu
larly reprehensible and as the exam
inatiOn was wandering away from tn
point at issue, Judge Cooper barre
further testimony of the same sort an
ordered the attorneys to confne thei
questioning to more narrow limits, sta
ing that he did not care to hear an
more of what had been brought out Q
previous hearings.
Henry Bertelmann was called mex
testifying that his mind was absolutel
unbiased. He did not spend much tim
1pon the stand.
Charles G. Bockus, who figured larg,
ly in the grand jury's refusal TO acceI
Cathcart' 5 dictation as TO what
should do and what it should not, wa
the next witness. In answer to Judg
Cooper's usual questions he answered
more than emphatic ~ did not.
Boclus testified that he had not rea
Of It and had not heard Of IT until II
day II came mp in the grand jury rooI
Stops Examination.
As nouthitt commenced the eros
examination Buckus stopped him an
made a curt explanation of his po,
tion IN the matter, saying that he hi
not returned from the C0nst until
few days before the session IN viii,
tntheart WAS asked 10 absent himse
from The deliberations of the graz
jury and lhat besides hearing lig
mention uf ihr rafe 4ueN nothing alo
N until that time
Aittr ffw further questions ha W
permitted 10 leave thr stand, alth0u.
ihe attorneys for tlt defnso Hupa
ently rspeetei i0 prove hlas u 4.
man who almost came No. nHIui
with ihp fiiF attorney
Thomas ~ thurth ifsi.hrd ihui
bad absolutely nn fH.IuE No fbf I'M
CO.. IhNmas li4IlHgfI Following ~
viii ilr umf latHnrnf
lTNin NmufI H6t tLf ngti NIfut