The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1869-12-04

The examination Of the charge of receiving stoler
whalebone, knowing it to be stolen, instituted agains,
Mr.. 7. G.. u-uck, at his own solicitation, has occu.
piel the Police Court for three days during the past
/ week, and was made under sections ! and 3 of the
10Th chapter of the revised Penal Code, which read
as follows:
!. The receiving Of stolen goods is. in contract or otherwise,
the frauduentIy taking. accepting OF. OBTAINING. keeping. con.
ssd: Or Illegally s1lor.sd y any Sas, q aiding therein,
3. whoever. without fraud, obtains possession or control of
goods, knowing them to be stolen. and afterwards frauduieutly
detains, keeps, conceals, or disposes OF the same. or aids there
owner. but that the owner shall be deprived and despoiiei
thereof. or of the benefit thereof, is guilty Of the Orense of
The task thus devolving upon me is. for obvious
reasons, one of no ordinary gravity and responsibility.
and that I approached the solution Of the problem
whether or not a jury Of the country would probably
convict or acquit the defendant on the evidence AL
duced, with an adequate appreciation of its solemnity
and importance. The law which imposes this oner-
Gus duty on the Police Court is found in Sec. sos Of
the Civil Code, in the following words:
sec sos. In all cases OF arrest for crimes or misieneanCrs
equitable before q jury, the magistrate in whose Jurisdiction
or on whose xaraa, the accused was arrested, shall, upor the
bringing up Of the accused, proceed to consider whether there is
sidueed, convict the accused Of the oGense with which he is
charged. saia jast;ee shall reduce:tO wiring the substance Of
in his opinion. the testimony do not warrant commitment for
doeIe, ; 10, H. In ii. opinion there |, I probable - cause sc to S . y
that conviction would take place before a jury, he shall make
Ii is in proof in the testimony, "a reasonably fair,
although not verbatim, report of which has been
luDlsned,D mat the Wn9leDOne IN question had been
undoubtedly stolen in the first instance, and placed
in the defendants premises in the night time, and in
the morning, by the connivance Of his own native
porter, placed in the weighing house in apparently
perfect order, and in which position it was first seen
by the defendant when he went TO have it weighed,
after his arrival ut or about 9 in the morning also,
that he had purchased all the lots at 40 cents per
pound, and had placed il in his cellar in the ordinary
way, with all its original marks and ties, just as re-
ceived, and without the slightest obliteration.
All that remained TO be proved was the all-impor-
tant and essential element in the case, viz, whether,
and how far, the defendant -'as aware, at the time
he purchased and stored away the bone, that il had
been stolen-whicht the law calls ''guilty knowledge -
that this was sought to be established both by direct,
circumstantial, and inferential testimony that the
only direct testimony was that of Nakookoo, the
chief culprit, who had been the prime mover in all
the chain Of larcenies proved in the case, and ON
whose evidence / shall comment hereafter.
IL appeared in evidence that the parties who called
on the defendant for the sale and payment Of the
bone were natives, and chiefly boatmen, known to
many as such, and it was contended by the Attorney
General that such fact ought to have excited the de-
PENDANTS suspicious, and put him on inquiry but,
on the other hand, there was not any proof that the
defendant had ever seen any of them before and,
moreover, that it had been proved by Mr.. j. G.
Pfuger. that the defendant was entirely unacquainted
with the bone trade, both generally and in detail,
including, probably, the kind of persons by whom il
might be offered for sale and further, that it was
proved that several lots of bone had been openly sold
by others than captains or agents, and that Mr..
Schaefer had bought one weighing over 100 pounds,
belonging TO a cooper, but which evidence is not in
cluded in the published report.
Ii was further contended on the part Of the Crown,
that the character of the packages brought to the de-
PENDANT for sale, and made up in cargo form, with
the cords usually adopted on board ship, and more
especially as some Of the parcels were distinctly
marked with the name Of the ship. ought certainly
to have aroused the defendants suspicious, and put
him on his guard ; and there can be no doubt of thef
force and justice OF this remark in an ordinary case,a
where these facts were known, or brought to the no
tice Of the purchaser but to this it is replied by the
defendants counsel that the defendant is proved to
be so afflicted with defective eye-sight as to be quite
incapable of discriminating or noting such matters,
and none of his clerks seem to have remarked them,
or thought them worthy of notice. I consider it
clear that in point OF fact they were wholly unnoticed !,
by, and unknown to defendant till after the arrival J
of the police officers. From the proved defectivenesst
Of the defendants ~eyo-sight, it seems impossible that J
he could have seen them where he stood in the weigh
ing house and MIR. Anthem. who was also there,
admits that he did not observe them, although the
side Of the parcel on which the word ss Onward
was printed, is proved to have lain uppermost. But
II the defendant was aware Of the existence Of such
evidence OF identity, and yet took no step to conceal
or eaace it, such a fact must operate in his favor. as
evidence of the absence Of all suspicious concealment,
usually a -concomitant Of criminalty. Capt. Pulver
says that II the slab on which the word g Onward -
was printed IN large and conspicuous red letters had
been removed-as could so easily have been done, he
had no other means of identifying his bone. and he
would be n clumsy rogue indeed who would so far
disregard or neglect his own safety when the means of
so ehectually securing il were so entirely and so
easily within his reach. To efface all such dsmninp
and conclusive proofof the identity of stolen property,
would seem to me to be just the first idea which
would suggest itself to n party desiring to secrete and
appropriate IL.
The price OF 40 cents per pound, Mt which all the !.
bone was purchased by the defendant, is relied on by |,
the prosecution as q fact from which the Court is Y
to infer n guilty knowledge. 1t is true that a !
grossly inadequate price is always considered n ma
terial incident in the consideration of cases like the
present, and IS entitled to grave consideration, and
Mr. Pnnnar whnp fha IaE-lA. n
Early in the season, does not say that he advised him
as to the msrimum price he might safely give, al
though he did tell him that the Consular rate of 6S =
tents was enormous, and would leave no margin for
profit and added, that he himself would have sold !
all the bone Of his firm atthat rate ; and also, that '
he had appraised the defendant of the risk of invest I
ing IN an article so fuctuating and uncertain and I
that whalebone had been sold in New York last =
ut 90 cents in gold, and that the price had .
in Europe during the last Is months. 20 To i
50 Per cent, and further. that the good catch of this b
'eason would probably keep it at a low figure here .
after. He says the defendant was entirely unac- .
luainted with the bone trade, and had no confidence L
n himself, and il does not appear i'm evidence that {
ne had been advised by anybody as TO a safe buying .
price, and il would seem that he was so Influenced by :
he caution he had received from SO reliable n QUAR- ~
e, that he had not sought to purchase any, and 9
would probably have kept clear of it entirely, if it ii
rad not been offered to him at q rate which he felt o
realize, even if the price should fall as low as :,
{ had done in the previous August =
In m e,,ims.ion, 40 cents l. no, 80 grossly an inadequate a Z
'Sr !. l-oeh JaI N uncrfiuk rom u n guilty uOwtedge a
which would probably have been the case. II the price hal Z
zen anything ike the SO for the package sold by Morgan. the Il
i mate Of the Oriole, an amount 80 grossly ipadeouate AZ to
ave OF itself excited suspicion p
Let Us now proceed To the consideration of the evidence of Il
Sakookoo. the chief actor In all the four steaIines. and the =
In all the sales Of bone 10 the defendant, and who stated. L
hat before he brought any hone TO the defendant,n premises :,
e had talked with him about Il, and lad told him that he o
ould not bring II In the daytime. a. he would only get Il from +
on board ships NJ night, and that defendant had
greed 70 buy IL nj 20 cents He says further, that ne asked q
efendant, whether the mAkai gate on Merchant street woud m
c shut OF open al night, and that defendant had replied, thai
he gate should be let open, and that he would speak TO his oil
anaka keamxlu, to that elect. And on his crosseamiua-
on he says that Keamalu told him. thar defendant had
rdered him not TO ioeh tt< gate IT night. In relation 20 the
lanne, Of locking the gate, .. appears by the evidence Of !.
Ieanialu himself, that the Merchant street gate. through which b.
;akookoo says all the bone Was carried, has not been locked -
sr the last seven months, during which he has been there. and r
hat u h merely fastened by an iron clasp falling over the tor. ci
nd easily opened from the outside, q statement confirmed by -
~ personal examination. What was the necesrity r adj. q
aniage TO the defendant, even on the theory Of his rult 10 III
rider . gate 10 be ien unlocked which never was locked. and In :
Re statement which he promised to do q ,h;or % YER, sily d.
I'D unmeaning a probable or credhle one and doc Il nof l.