The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1858-09-30

In another column Will be found n communication
from Mr.. A. Peatt, in which he gives his version of
the affair. Some of the statements made by him are
strong, but he assures us that every line can be
proven.
In the last Polynes,nn appears a +" statement of
facts,'' made by the District Attorney. There is
nothing in the details given that materially alters
issue. What we there stated was called forth, not
from any desire to find fault with officers of the gov
eminent, but from a conviction that advantage had
been taken on the part of the government TO enforce
the forfeiture of penalties against persons, (as well as
in subsequent transactions) who. had they been other
wise circumstanced. might not have been troubled.
This is patent to all. No one believes that if the
District Attorney had been the bondsman in the case,
he would ever have had to pay one dollar of the bond.
The assurance at the time Of the sale, that Sim
mediate possession" would be given, may have been
withheld; we were not present, and the statement was
made on the authority of others. The promise of
" immediate possession was, however, distinctly and
positively given to the purchaser, at the time he paid
the money; but before executing his promise, the
Sheriff was advised to a contrary course by the Dis
trict Attorney. The reasons may have been good,
but it certainly indicates a violation of faith between
the parties. If the sale was discovered to have been
void, the only alternative was for the Sheriff, at his
own risk, to refund the money to the purchaser.
cit is a novel doctrine'' that Sc the Sheriff is with
ont authority, under any execution. to put the pur-
chaser into possession of real estate sold by him.
Common sense would indicate that a Sheriff or con-
stable must obtain and mold possession of the pro-
perty attached before he can sell it, whether it be
real or chattel property. whether it be a piece of
land, a house, a vessel, a horse or anything else.
He must obtain possession before he can sell. A sale
effected on any other ground is a fraud The require
ments of our statutes are clear and definite in regard
to this matter Of possession, which we quote, without
presuming to read law to His M~ajesty's Attorney,
who is supposed to be posted up in the matter, but
merely for public Information:
"sEcr. M.-Every levy by a constable in pursuance of a
Judgment rendered by either OF the said justices. shah he made
by taking the property levied upon into his possession, care
and In his option by removal. II the same s to pny place ee IF s, cur
preparatory to advertisement and aie."-Sfafufes Of 1876,
roL II. page 10.
This undoubtedly covers all attachments of real or
personal property, and if a constable or Sheriff sells
property without obtaining possession, he does it /. at
his risk and peril" If any other rule is hereafter to
be set up, it ought to be known.
What the title may be yorth, is another question
entirely separate and distinct, and the purchaser
always buys the title at his own risk. The title to
real estate is very frequently involved and uncertain;
but in regard to possession there is no uncertainty;
the Sheriff either has possession of the property at
tached or he has not and he ought to know which
before the sale.
We are told that the bondsman in this affair has
"a been treated with great Leniency by the Sheriff and
Dist Attorney Of Oahu Until the public are shown
how much q the sum of S1lS5 IS, which, according
to the District Attorneys own statement, has been
to satisfy the bond-untl they are shown
how much OF that sum (or whether even $500 of it,
has or ever will reach the public exchequer, they will
be more likely to view the :" leniency'' shown to the
by these executive officers, such as the
vulture shows the lamb.
When the District Attorney attempts to treat this
matter as a joke, as is done in the last paragraph of
his statement, he should bear in mind that The public
are not apt to submit to have their Just and legal
tempered with by any Executive officers,
II he is anxious to share the odium attaching to
this affair, no one can object To say the least about
i, and to put the best face on it that can be done. it
q disgraceful stretch of executive authority over
parties who have not the advantage of influence or
direct trespass (under cover Of the law)
IN individual rights. which no government or COM
ought quietly to sanction.
Rrra AcAru AZ ~ n rt