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

strange proceeding. If % Nakookoo says Keama-
iu was told by Heuck .ot to fasten the gate, and
no evidence is addrced to prove the contrary,
there wns Sufficient reason for his not telling
Henck about the bone being brought at night, as
he doubtless inferred and says that Heuck knew
all about it. If this native thought it a strange
proceeding, it must have occurred to his employer
that it was passing strange when he was buying
bone at 10 cents n pound, when the published con-
sular rate was 68 cents who knew, if Nakookoo
and his own witness are to be believed, and there
is no reason why they should not be, that 1t was
brought at night; who must have seen thatlt was
in large understandable packages; clearly marked,
the marks lying uppermost, in a light room.
Master s. Anthem q clerk in Heuck's employ
says that he has not seen money paid for whale
bone and recognized NakookOo as the party who
brought the bone for sale ; that Nakookoo told
him that he had bone IN the yard which was for
sale; that IL icas brought al night TO evade n
license that he, Anthem, told him IL tcds all right
and asked him If he ,could hare any more 70 sell
and was answered yes that he did not tell his
employer about its being brought nights until
after the police had been in the store, because he
0lU uOt tuiuk IL Important tuat hS Upo W ~
the mark, although Keamalu saw it and says any
body could see it who wanted to. Possibly An
thon's eyes were sore although evidence as to that
fact was not produced. To employers it must APP
pear strange that a clerk should endorse a trans
action that embraces u fraud on the revenue by
saying that it was all right, and seems solicitous
to know if other lots of goods so obtained would
be forthcoming, and admit that he did not tell his
employer of it because he did not consider tim
portant. What is the inference? Is it not that
such transactions were of too common occurrence,
that they had lost all importance in the eyes of
the clerk?
Mr.. C. F. Pluger another witness for Heuck,
and in Heuck's employ, says he saw Nakookoo
paid $50; does not know much else about the
bone transactions, rs he was away sick; that there
has not been any attention paid to fastening the
gate since Inc had been in the employ, for five
months.
Several Witnesses were brought forward who
proved that it was not customary to pay crews off
with whalebone; that the price of bone such as
was in Court was from 63 to 6S cents; that the
bone in Court was not trade bone, and that it was
put in order for shipping. Other witnesses testi-
fed that they had bought small lots of trade bone ;
that they never bought OF natives unless perhaps
n slab or two. Mr.. Schaefer's evidence on this
point is made much Of in favor OF Mr.. Heuck by
the magistrate, and in such q manner rs TO be a
gross injustice TO Mr.. Schaefer, as it places his
transactions on n level with those of Mr.. Heuck,
whereas they were made in a legitimate and pro-
per way. The effect Of such studied misrepre-
sentation contained in 4 legal decision, ought not
to be moderated, Us it is only intended to have
force abroad, where the whole facts are not known.
Witnesses were also introduced to prove that
IIeuck's eyes were weak and as to his character
and standing in the community, one of them say
ing that he thought " it was utterly impossible
for him to commit the offence with which he is
charged"
This was the testimony upon which the
magistrate founded his decision that there was
not probable cause to believe that a jury would
convict. This is strange when upon the testimony
of the self same Hawaiians he has committed two
American seaman to stand n trial before n jury
ut the next term of the Supreme Court, and has
sentenced Hakuole to three years Imprisonment
for one theft, and committed him to stand trial
for a second theft, of the Identical bone which
Mr.. Heuck has been purchasing under ouch pc
culiar and suspicious circumstances.
The magistrate was simply called upon to
weigh the evidence, and if probable cause for con-
v%iction existed, to remand the prisoner for trial
before a jury. 1t would seem that justice to the
public, and to the accused party, alike called for
n jury trial, and it is very evident that an acquit-
tai by twelve intelligent men would go farther to
rc-cstablish character, than a dismissal by n mag
istratc under circumstances which cause 30 much
discussion.