The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1869-12-11

Asked resFo1.rnt -hsthsr be had given Vincent $500. and he
repied that b. had no, give" ham $50, bot had lo,ned u, and
di-ess-sSa 9TH the counsel and respondent about tas 500 or
Mr.. Bates, counsel for respondent. testified that his client
insgrmei him that Mr. John Monigomery, a-soe.ste counsel,
made a prOP@iit'e that Sr $1,000 his iesthmony should be
asorahse 20 respnnJsn,' and al a meeting o. eSa.Ss. anu easni,
communication. and whether Mr.. John Montgomery had pro-
ba1is. $500. DhIeh vas % se retained b. him to abide The
,;.as o. this sHit Or the bsnsat Of Mr. Vincent, TO which Mr..
cited al this reply because he had understood Mr.. Davis
Bate further testified thai Mr. s5Geitor Montgomery said To
Daniel, ia his presence that be had told him that he, the re-
Is not true. I did let him have 800. He came To me in dis
9 lord u sSd hi% 1 siSS. = Mr. John Moa,eo@ery re,asseissd the
statement as made by the respondent, who stated further that
him that he did not know how he was going to b situated; hut
49, - m mal ,u y yo ammuni ? ,,ies 10 wilas !. ~ nT relation Iau 10
IN statements alleged TO have been made BY Mr.. DAVIS about
soHeitor Montgomery t=siihes tina; Mr.. Davis did not ue
b. induced % give evidence either cn one eide or the other, by
any valuable Consideration hut the Impression lHh on hrs
Puaina, AMI as the rr-T-adent told him 50, as wen as Mr.
DAVIS. and his remarks in relation to hard time- inferrei
thStSht might operate On Nineent's testtmony- He FELT there
Was a risk u Vincent bring induced 10 deviate from the truth,
which, from Mr.. Bates statement, we're on resPondent's side
Of the case Solicitor Montgomery then mAts a eommuniea-
Davis lie stated to his client thai il appeared to him that
,nss ~ a. Sspse.fa sons ,G1aesnss,, . HssP him Ga Z. ~ 4 h =
E8-ht. 20 which the respondent replied Il have paid that
L man S~Ds Al 4 N Iuf "
sdeitor Montgomery SAYS he expressed surprise at this
eoun-- Th-se remarks Of Mr. Davis were undoubtedly The
va, SIsn TO snes- Tbs solicitor VA. in.erosa.sd whether
moay, atd wh-ihsr the r-.taasd-nt ~as not a ioai uat TO g.Te
IL Ne r.Pssi that his client had given $500. a. he Saii, and
Sas not increasing tie onenss, and that he had said Fculahy
that he might - well 60 the who- has.' lie denies eN-
! pEeify that he ever advised respondent Montgomery TO make
the overture.
view oi the counsel AMI client, . can't stand that. Robert !
"a. an.isr the impression that Mr.. Davis meant 20 convey a
I L~ltal that h. had uuad~ aug enuufnuufcntfuut In me a a The sub-
pct q his Interview With Vincent. aud l dd not rsfI TO the
CENTS bsneht Mr.. Mont<oIn.ry ays he desired Mr.. Bates To
asc.saIany him &, NJ. Davis hoa-e, Gr the pur-se Of hav-
Ia the staisInsut msds by Mr.. Davis in Mr. Bates ofhee.
Which ] arrlerstoad ., b a dsniai that he had communicated
anything g. me abort Vincent, anil the $1,000, 80 much talked
aboai- This interview ss had, and explanations made, and
$1,000 sas rInpvsd by NJ DAVIS by the declaration that the
proGHSitioa dial not come from Mr. Vincent, To which Mr..
~ named a. owning from Mr. vincrnL'"
d-elosei create doubts ~ "a the truth Of the testimony of Mr..
vincent; fr 10 a man has accepted, OF Offered o. aeeeIi a
fully sustained by the mast reliable witnesses, OF by eircum-
stances % the strongest character.
mind 81 his associate counsel. Mr.. Bates, is unienrabI-. But
had he any ground for entertaining such an opinion OF Mt.
Mr vincent I'm rel ition to his knowieige Of the facts involved
sVuLi give, but hs StuIousIy avoided 10. The intrcluei Oh To
na (, soI' s,ss y Is no, %a ams /, I,.h , !, may b. re,
prci s,idIal it aPTrars that they were early friends, and
private affairs, Of iheir business, Of their personal condition.
Mr: vincent said his business a poor and times were hard.
had stated TO him II he wanted a thoas.nd dollars TO use he
iHirfs that be wants money for his testimony, and 50 states TO
IN respondent, ~ho COMMUNICATES e to Mr. Bates But,
Mr; Davis he iHdiEnsnIly rspudiates IL, and sly. that no such
then, has not Mr. Davis made different statements Of the same
irltsaettonl He denies emIhsiir ally thai Vincent had offered
n,s.S,n the esS.s~si and respondspi Solicitor MSn'g merry
N, 49,, -, !. ssSIn % as M ne e,as
that $1,000 would BE- the inlueement- The deductions made
versAIion with an SI friend. a man NAV ). permitrei to talk
81 his rsyerses and his misfOrtunes without, being thought To
nave "a" ~ nhPted overture o m''.y Tor MS '.s'1no"y.
Me-. Montgomery drew inf-rence- which rere no, legitimate;
and there i. no prOpn-ry that Mr.. Davi, should be snswerable
ir them There is certainly no ground for the opinion that
s nc from the charge OF having made Oveftur.s for his tes-
When Solicitor MONTGOMERY made known to his client the
impressions hc had derived from MI. Davis, that Vincent -x-
his testimony, AMI Le thought $1,000 was that inducenent, his
client stated 70 him that he had gwen Vincent $500, and could
erEninahfy Of the onense Of bribery, whether the sum was
such conduct. IL was no, m aeeasioa 70 h. iocuilsr. or sr =
eaun.-ilor Of tn Court to indulge iu trining remarks upon
In a Court Of Justice IL Is, indeed, rrihing with serious
nption- and the Court cannot for a moment entertan a dis
10 induce him To tell the truth. Il is corruption itself; and
The man who would receive money % tell the truth, would re-
eetve money 10 tell n hlseh'-i, and there could he no reliance
upon his testimony in either case. Mr.. Montgomery has al
Court do norbei.ve that he woabI seriously entertain. or nd
wise n client 20 entertain, \ proposition Of this character. The
the course Of Isli Investigation will be Iiabie 10 be impure,
and aanssfyas TO the rights q Parties. Should a case be made
out % . violation II this principle. IL won d be the imperative
duty Of the Court 20 strike the name Of the Offender irVm the
Again we find the Police Magistrate the sub
Ject of II mild reproOf from Il judge of the
Supreme Court, which is. however, tempered by
n statement that " Mr.. Montgomery has always
sustained an honorable position at the bar " a
admission when the 80 mis-representa-
ton which Judge Robertson remarked upon in
1856 is taken into consideration. From these
two incidents in the life of the Magistrate, any
one must be satisfied that he is hardly the person
to be allowed the opportunity to check the course
OF justice by such unwarrantabIe decisions.
who were present when the late examina-
tion was going on. must have noticed the singular
Of the Magistrate. His evident bias
during the examination called forth from the
General the remark that lie, the AttOr-
ney General, " would not be a party to screen
any person involved in this Transaction Stung
by this rebukc the Magistrate yielded the point
in dispute petulantly renarking that he did it
only because it would not make any difference
To him." And again when The Attorney General
%cliciting, under a cross examination of the
for the defence, damaging testimony as
to the guilty knowledge Of the accused. he was
so interiered with that he remarked = that If the
cross examination was To be interrupted in this
way, how could justice be obtained ?' When
damaging testimony was being ELECTED against
the accused, the Magistrate was pleased to yawn
and give every evidence of wcariness and disgust;
but let the testimony take a turn, however slight,
and his face beamed with delight, and he was all
The public must see that n man who is capa-
BILE of uttering a paipable falsehood to improve
the condition of his purse, as is proved by the
Turner case; who is SO loose in his ideas in re-
gard to bribery, proof of which is clearly set
forth in the decision of Chief Justice Allen, and
Tor which he received SO scathing a rebuke, is not
the man to hold Il position Of honor and trust.
The public NAV well ask the Government IL thou