The Hawaiian gazette., 1870-11-30
Supreme Court OF the Hawaiian
Islands,
Maasr Of VIVA c. Jones, an Anor7,ey-afEarr.
~ BANoo. HAKrwEL AND wIDENANS, y.
OCT TERN, A D. $50.

M11er cT WA {. Jones, an An0T-nel-lf tdic.
on Information Of the Attorney General, rule
TO show cause issued, returnabie before the Court
in hanco.
The Information presents that Mays 1870
one Peterson was committed for trial il1Ie July
Term OF this Court. for assault with deadly
weapon. two witnesses being at the same time
committed. to testify. That the respondent ap-
peared for the prisoner at said Term Of Court,
when proceedings were had Of which the follow
ingas the record The King vs.. 0rlof Peterson.
case not On The Calendar but Attorney
eeaeul and W. c. Jones, for defendant, agned
EIhai certain dispositions Of. witnesses. nod
teniiou, might be taken by the Clerk to bs.used
in any trial for the matter charged. and case to
stand continued to next Term" That July 9,
the dispositions were taken, and the following
agreement endorsed thereon Ii is agreed that
the foregoing dcpositions Of William Carroll and
Patrick ODonnell may be used in evidence 10
the trial Of any indictment against 0rlof Peter
son Tor the assault on William Carroll above re-
fered TO- and that no further proof Of the identity
Of the said Or0T Peterson shall be required
Stephen h. Phillips, Auorney-General W. c.
Jones, Attorney for defendant. Court House
Honolulu, July 70, 1870" That the respondent
held himself out as fully authorized to make the
said agreement, and that the Attorney-General
relying on the good faith Of the respondent as an
Attorney Of this Court, and believing him 10
have full authority IN the premises, allowed the
said witnesses 10 leave the Kingdom, having no
other testimony on which to rely; all Of which
facts the respondent hath at all times vel know
but he nevertheless gave the Attorney-Geaeral
up to the day set for trial no iutination that the
said agreement was unauthorized by the prisoner
or that exception would be taken to its enforce
ment. at which late period it was impossible to
obtain testimony, and it was adjudged to be the
duty Of the Court no longer TO deiain the said
Peterson. who was therefore discharged. and the
enforcement Of the penalty of the law against
him became impossible. And the Attorney
General further saws it Is incident to the Office Of
an Attorney in this Court that his right to repre-
sent bis client should be uuquesiioned, and that
al other officers Of the Court and Of the law
have right TO assume, at all times, that all
acts done ID the name and behalf Of their re-
spec,ive clients, 10 open Court or 10 other pro-
ceediurs necessarily connected with the conduct
Ct cases pending in Court, have the fall sanction
and approval Of those whom they claim to repre-
sent. and e govern themselves accordingly, and
that Wher proceedings are had upon the faith Of
sach assumed authority, which said attorneys pee
n, to be ha6 without suggesting their want Of
authority. to the prejudice Of public prosecutions
orof private suitors they should be held response
be Tor the fraud resulting from such conc5alment
as otherwise the profession would be exposed to
great public scandal and the confidence which
ought TO be rePosed IN all acts Of Attorneys and
Ccunsellors OF this Court would be wholly de-
siToyed.
And the Attorney General further says that
the failure Of the prosecution against the said
orloT Peterson iswbolly and directly attributable
TO the confidence which was misplaced in the
agreement Of The said William c. Jones. that
the written testimony Of said parties should be
read 10 evidence al the trial Of the indictment
ac1iust said Oriof Peterson, and that said William
c. cones was guilty Of a breach Of duty as an
Attorney and Counsellor Of tIis Court 10 con
seuiing % such an agreement without authority
from his client, and not disclosing such want Of
authority 10 said Attorney General, although
vel kuow1ug that fatal reliance was placed upon
saia agreement aud the implied pledge of au-
ihoriy therein contained.
..Wherefore. the said Attorney General moves
that said William c. Jones be ordered to
show cause why his name should not be stricken
from the roll Of Attorneys and Counsellors Of
tbs Court, and such other proceedings had as to
tins honorable Court may seem meet"
The answer Is as follows, viz:
! That the said complaint sets forth no sub
s,aniisl cause for striking the name Of an Attor-
ney from the roll and Is insufficient in law.
? That the statements in said complaint
amount to this that the respondent made an
agreement in good faith under mistaken impress 4
son Of the law, and, after he had discovered his
error. admitted the same TO the Court
3 And therefore the respondent in further
snswer to this complaint and the rule to show
cause. respectfully makes the following statement
Of facts to the Court That at the adjourned
Tern Of The supreme Court. in the month Of
JAY leo. as set forth in said complaint, the .
Atioroey-General requested the respondent to .
agree 10 the taking Of the dispositions Of William .
Carroll and Patrick ODOnneI, witnesses in the .
case Of the King vs. Orlof Peterson. in order to /
release them from confinement and this respond /
eat oui Of motives OF humanity and TO release
sid witnesses from prison. IN good faith consented
70 taking said depositieus, without rejecting at
the tine that he Was taking responsibility not
sutborize6 BY the Constitution and laws Of this
Kingdom that al the time Of taking said depo-
ssiioas to vii, on the 18th Of July, 1870. the
sid Orlof Peterson was not present and L
McCaiiy- ESQ. the Clerk. enquired if the Attor-
uey-General did DO; require the presence Of the
sid OrioH Peterson. when be. the Attorney
General replied that he did not require his
presence and this respondent AYERS that be did
DOT a. any tine consult with said 0rlof Peterson
sboat the taking Of said dispositions. and did not
think Al the tine that he had not full power to
sci IN The premises; that after said dispositions
Eere taken. this respondent did not think any
more q the matter until the present tern: u tie
tie supreme Court. when it was suggested to
hin BY an Attorney Of this Court. that said de-