The Hawaiian gazette., 1869-09-29


detained longer than when sufficient eause
should be shown for his discharge. The
Respondent has failed to show sufficient cause
to authorize his release. In regerd to the OBJ
jections made-Other than technical-the Court
has been particular TO guard the rights of the
Respondent. The Friday. Saturday Sunday
and Monday, there the Court counted on its
fngers) were allowed, including the day of
service made. But objection having been
made to this, ! gave until the 18th, and he
not paying, shoald not be justified in releas-
ing the prisoner. l think ample justice has
been done him."
1T will be observed that the learned judge
does not deign 10 say a word about his irrit
being at variance with his order-on the 9th,
on the 10th, and on the 18th"
Now, let it be remembered that this re-
port is made by one who has seen fit to
array himself in opposition to the judge.
and to endeavor to detract from him-and
what does it amount to? That the judge
ordered, on September 10th, that Mr.. Mac
donald pay his judgment within four days,
or that he would be arrested-this occur
ring at u o'clock on the 10th of Septem-
Der. In causing his order TO be written
out, for the purpose of greater certainty.
he caused the words: "including this day,
the date Of This monition, to be inserted.
No lawyer ever doubted the propriety of
this He might have ordered him to be
arrested at once; but he thought proper
to give him four days, and to limit the four
days by counting that day, Friday, as oue
In other words, in the order communicated
to Mr.. Macdonald, he saw fit to say to
him on Friday, IF you have not paid
this Judgment by u o'clock on Monday,
you will be arrested. Let it be borne in
mind that it was perfectly sound thing
to order his arrest at once, yet the Judge
gave him to Monday. But objection being
made to this on the ground that the verbal
order was understood to reach till Tues
day, he actually did not give his order
until Wednesday. 15th,-thus making five
clear days. On the 23d, Respondent comes
in and says: "On Friday understood you
to say to me that / was to pay on Tuesday,
the 18th. Your written order says Monday.
the 18TH yet you have sent me to Jail on
the 18th, for not obeying an order which
you say was meant for the 18th, and l
understood to be meant for the 18th.
Mind, all this was said on the 23d. as a
reason to be discharged on that day. Is
not the clear answer to it: Well have
you paid yet? ION the 23d,) and if he
has not, why shall the Court release him,
that he may set their judgment at defiance?
But, as is usual, our friend always has one
point which is especially rich. He says,
in the quotation at the head of this
The charges must either be true, or the
Judge has been most grossly abused and
misrepresented :" and in the preceding
sentence he remarks that he ought to
bring " to account those who make them,
if they be not true" Now, we do not
know what charges he refers to, not count
ing tn passing of a paper in pencil to his
Clerk and the ride to Koolaull or
the counting on his fingers ! as being
very serious. But when it is considered
that it is the EDITOR HIMSELF. who,
in his editorial capacity, has made all the
talk, and is solely responsible for it! 1t
must be acknowledged that it is pretty
good for him to say that he ought to be
brought to an account IF they be not true,
and that IF they be not true, the judge
has been most grossly abused and insulted.
He says this case is ridiculonsly cele-
brated. 1t is certain that he has made
himself ridiculous" enough-but that
does not make the case celebrated or
" ridiculous"