The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1869-12-11
THE PACIFIC
Commercial Advertiser.
SATURDAY, DECEMBER IL.
The Police NIaristracy.

The recent decision vi the Police Magistrate
has created great discussion and some alarm in
the community. We cannot say that in this
case n jury would have convicted, but that there
is probable cause to believe that this would have
been the result, we have heard but few deny.
But pass this ease by. and let us suppose some
other person brought to trial for n chine, and
that the person holds a respectable position in
our society, has money, influence and friends,
what guarantee has the public that on the pre-
liminary examination the Magistrate will not bar
justice by n refusal To commit for trial?-of what
use is it for the police to ferret out crimes and
bring offenders TO trial for the Attorney General
to prosecute, If ut this first stage IN the trial.
one which cannot be denied the accused. the
Magistrate can with one word stop proceedings.
We claim that this decision is in perfect keep
ing with the character and career OF the Magis-
trate while on these islands, to prove which we
quote the following extracts from the LIST and 81
volumes Of Hawaiian reports In Probate, July,
1856, in the matter Of the estate of ~. +. Turner,
deceased, Judge Robertson in the course of his
decision says:
finuy intstss,ed Win Mh; Jshn Asutgsmsry. Of mOaoIulu,
managing partner eooiuetsJ 90 tl~ir Fsat account. Shortly
after Nr: Turner'S d-aih. Ia. .urvivius PARTNER. Sir. NoniKoHi-
estate from Judge Basd o. Eaaai proceeded 10 dIsTsss Of a
portion o. TIE ssrsohH s,yf-ry Of tbs par NJ rshiP-snd all
tn firm and the privai- a-bos d SIR. Tuner
reported by the sinsn.sr4ser as a sale toMr. Mcbride. and MOI
70 himself as q - ny aanss,sd Go have besa and 20 hold that
allow ue aiHnphssra.g % gain an advantage under the
s sssa aesssi se e. '-~. a:'o a ..,:-,sE:s.s1Iaaoa q
consideration as g az f.rDs-s q the .Ae. or is nses-ssiy,G
uaisr any eireaasstStr-s >, Be AlISsvd. whether he : to be ~
sSasGy iatsrsss~4 i iSs f1..z.s; q he stale. Il Z sSIeh he
vas q trustee aor sab - Ss1siS Of opsnton that this posi-
o. be,h Ensash 4a AE=riea. sgth0rif-.".
Mr. Montgomery was .s-bir eSt-s4 with n nlueiAry eharae-
Ter, eeios al oose thu s--v-hE< partD-F and sdninistrator q
these diverse ehaEsstsn, saIr iss heirs at law Of Mr.. turner
resale IN a foseisn lAsi s.s Fsesliarly calculated to tOaeh and
might be, 90 himself Uaacr hose circumstance he beesu1e
,sird P SsSsg. Ne 20 e sss s sr2 ssS- , a"rs sa iSs I ,S1sss, mi q a
% the rule than ths present, and Il must be dealt with accord
In this case the present Police Magistrate
cvineed n disposition TO improve his pecuniary
condition BY deceit, the parties to be injured be-
ing the heirs at law of his deceased PARTNER, VII
could not at the time defend themselves. The
language Of Judge Robertson was certainly mild
but quite pIain, when he styles MIR. Montgomery's
statement that the property was sold to another
party, when it was in reality to himself, a fact
which Montgomery afterwards admitted, q mis-
repr sssnfafion, any harsher term would not be in
place in a decision of the Supreme Court.
From the case OF Isaac Montgomery as. Daniel
Montgomery, where Chief Justice Allen delivered
the decision, we quote the following extracts
Mr.. Davis test6es that Vincent stated that he had nothing
20 gain BY this suit, II IL vent either way, and thought that the
only oenent he could derive would be employ nlent In the line
Of his business on the property, and IL may be that I con-
veyed the idea % the minds Of my associates I Cannot say
that Vincent sisted he Was % more Consequence than all the
lawyers i do not fcOlIect Of having made such n statement
10 others / have never inSinuated that Mr.. VINCENT had
stated TO me th@t he wished money placed NJ his disposal,
and i never gave assent 20 n question involving this 20 Mr..
with these geutkmen, and told them thai 7 thought Mr. Vim
cents testimony would Be adverse TO our client. He then
stated 20 Mr.. Bates there - one important matter In this case
which j VIII dscbose O. You conndenfiAly, that $1,000 has
been named N TIRE price Of Ninc.nts testimony, and Mr.. Bates
said Yes, that II What I wanted TO know about I said, then,
MI. Bates, ! wish yCu 10 understand that 4 named IL 10 my
eoleasue, Nj J. Montgomery, but, the proposition did not
come wm Ninc.Ht. A0nisVnisy replied, fes, Was named
To me by you, but not a. coming frOm Vincent Mr. Bates
asked me whether NOntscnery dd not think IL came from
Ntncent- ] replied that Mr. Montgomery might have received
that impression, rather than that ! conveyed a. I MFR that
he might have received that impression from the fact that my
coleaguc, Montgomery. Afterwards told me that the respondent
I'D that ne had given Vincent 500 Mr.. Davis said that SIR.
Iota Montgomery had called on him 70 pat him right with Mr..
tween an the c01DSei and the respondent Mr.. Vincent stated
% me thai Mr. Daniel Montgomery had said % him that II he
wanted $1,000 10 use, he would let him have H. ! asked him
10 u was not IN the light Of = loan. and he rephcd, perhaps 70
might b. 81 I dbl not then regard the statement Of Mr.. Vim
cent a . q d~etaration that rcsIDnf~nf had attempted In bribe