The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1869-09-11
AnriIIIant. judiciary.

I N IsffiitfIlI busiicistfys
\ wise and independent Judiciary is the glory
ola country. 1t is the guard of the Constitution,
the shield of the royal prcrogatiye, the strong
arm of the government in the administration OF
the laws, and II the only power charged with the
impartial administration of justice. The judicial
history Of n country shows its grade in the scale
of civilization il exhibits the moral, social and
political status of n people. y weak, imbecile
and incompetent Judiciary marks the moral and
social decline Of a nation. the progress of crime.
the disregard of individual rights, n neglect and
trampling upon the laws, and finally ends in u
long train OF evil, crime and moral turpitude,
that marks the reign of legal anarchy over the
ruins of justice. Such u Judiciary bows the
s~uppliant knee to power, is q puppet in the
hands of n few who work the wires behind the
scenes, law is ignored and individual right clouded
and befogged, SO the Courts dispense not justice
and law secures not right. Have We such n
judiciary in these islands?
The history of the case of Thomas Hazlin rs.
Henry Mcdonald will tend to illustrate this point,
and will deyelopc an answer to our question, and
the fact whether our Supreme Court needs regen-
Grafton.
This suit was commenced by 4 libel fled by W.
C.. Jones, Esq, proctor for the libellant, before
the Hon. H.. A. Widemann, Second Associate
Justice of tine Supreme Court, in a cause of per-
sonal damages, civil and maritime, for alleged
gross abuse and outrages on the person of the
libellant, by which his left eye was permanently
injured and for which he prayed $500 damages.
The proctor for the respondent, r. H.. Stanley,
Esq, filed Il plea to the jurisdiction. Mr.. Jones,
n IL III CT "a -. -
objections to the Court entertaining said plea, on
the ground that under the treaty stipulations, on
which said plea was based, the Consul, as repre-
sentative of his government, and the contracting
parties in the treaty, alone had the power to
make objection to the jurisdiction by way of
protest that the Court had Jurisdiction over the
rerson and subject matter, and that the Supreme
Court had repeatedly decided the point in analo-
gous cases. This objection was argued by Mr..
Jones and Mr.. Stanley, and when the argument
on that point was concluded, and before the plea
to the jurisdiction anne up for argument at all,
the Court jumped over the written objections of
Mr.. Jones, ignored their existence and proceeded
to pronounce the opinion Of the Court on the
plea to the jurisdiction, overruling the same.
This was the first blundcr i'm the trial of the
cause. Mr.. Stanley with come warmth objected
to the Court taking such a steeple-chasc leap, but
Judge Widemnnn calmly replied that if he
desired to argue the case he might do so, with
somewhat the air of the Hibernian, who said,
.s BE jabers, its meself that's open to conviction,
but I'd jest like TO sec the man who could con-
vince me-"
The case was tried, arguments closed, taken
under adyisement, and subsequently n paper
written in pencil. horribly intcrlined, not properly
headed OF dated, and not signed at all. was filed
with the clerk as the judgment of the Court.
The decision of the Court was that respondent
should pay the wholly inadequate sum of $3.50
damages, and not n word was said about the
costs, or about respondents being held in Gus
tOdy till the damages were paid, or that final
process should issue. This was compound blum
der Nos. ., 3, 4 and 5. Properly this judgment
should have been given an open Court, where. if
wrong, il could have been modified at the time,
and the libeIlant's proctor could have taken the
steps to enforce the payment Of the
damages, by an order for arrest or a eapias exc
cution.
In the meantime the respondent, not paying
the amount of damages, continued under arrest
until the morning of the Sth inst, when his
proctor, r. III. Stanley, Esq, prepared and filed
n petition for n writ Of habeas corpus, directed
to the Hon. 4. S. Hartwell, First Associate
Justice of the Supreme Court. Now 1t must be
borne in mind that the respondent was in Gus
tody, at the instance Of libellant. and not on
charge for n public crime. He WIS in custody to
answer the libel. What followed? The libellant
was not notified of the babeas corpus His
proctor was not notified and knew nothing what
ever OF the application, although in or near the
Court House ut the timeIi There was no writ of
corpus issued :, Yet said Associate
Justice, in a civil cause, proceeded to hear and
pronounce an CT parte decision on the petition ~
The following is the endorsement on the back Of
the petition for habeas corpus:
sLet the petitioner be discharged from custody, unless he Is
required 10 answer further in The libel suit on which he was
arrested before the Hon Judge widemann- A. s. ii.
September sth, 1870"
This document was no sooner signed than the
for habeas corpus, with the above en-
i-orsement, was presented to the Hon. ii. A.
Widemann, who, without any notification to IL
bellant or his proctor, makes the following en-
= discharged September sth, 1853. II. A. W."
Here was the final blunder. Up to the present
imc, is not this case as clear as mud? And how
must we class our judiciary? Is it wise, indie
'endent and the glory of the country, or is it
weak, imbecile and incompetent? Men who have
ived IN an enlightened land, having common
ense and intelligence, if they never looked in a
NV book, can form n correct conclusion.
Would it not be a sound rule for our Justices of
he Supreme Court never TO decide 4 question