The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1881-01-15
Supreme Court.
JANUARY SESSION; 1881.
Before His Honor the Chief Justice
Chas. C.. Harris, ESQ.

CRIMINAL SES.-dAWAIIA JURIES.
THURSDAY. JANUARY 6.-The King vs. Waipaa.
AS reported in last weeks ADVERTISER the jury in
this case having boon unable to agree, had been dis
missed to their homes on Wednesday night, and were
now called up for discharge. Upon the foreman
reporting their inability to agree upon q verdict, the
Chief Justice ordered Waipaa to stand. and said.
tI am amazed to see this case brought up here. This
man knows the law, or ought to know it, and his
chiefs certainly do know it. 1 adverted to it yester-
day. (The law referred to is Chapter 40 Section 2
and Section 6 of the Penal Code, which reads as
follows Sec. 2. When a breach of the peace or other
offense has been committed, and the offender shall
endeavor to escape, he may be arrested by virtue of
a verbal order of any magistrate, or without such
order If no magistrate be present. Sec. 6. At or
before the time of making an arrest, the person must
declare that he is an officer of justice, if such be the
case if he make the arrest without war
rant in any of the cases in which it is authorized by
law, he should give the party arrested clearly to
understand for what cause he undertakes to make
the arrest, and must require him to submit and ac-
company him to the Jail or magistrate. sNoW
there is no justification for this assault whatsoever {;
there is no pretense that this gentleman who was
sitting in his own house on Sunday morning and is q
a we'll known citizen, was attempting to escape from
anybody or anything, nor is there any pretense that
the officer arresting him violently ever told him that
he was about to arrest him, or gave him to under
stand either clearly or otherwise, for what cause he
undertook the arrest, nor did he require him to sub
NIT and accompany him to the jail; and, even ad-
hitting that he had committed any ofense, without
these prelimanaries, the officer had not the right to
lay the weight of his finger upon him. and if he did,
the person so assaulted by him, had a perfect right
to resist. 1t was a gross outrage not only on the
person arrested, but on the community, whose peace
and sense of %propriety were disturbed. This re-
spondent was taken before the Police magistrate
who had the authority to discharge him summarily
from the Police Force. See Section 266 of the Civil
Code. But the magistrate saw fit to take the gentler
course of fning him the small sum of SIS. And vet
this man is here before this court causing us to spend
noarlu q Whola AoU II inunofi0ofin0 khso
fault. And now, therefore, in conformity with the
266th Section of the Civil Code which enacts that
Policemen may be removed at any time by the
Governors, Marshal, any Judge of Court of Record,
or Police Justice l do dismiss him from the Police
Force and require that he be not employed again
therein The Jury was then discharged.
CIVIL CAsEs-HAwAIIAN JURY.
Kuaaka vs. Manini and Ainiu, Ejectment. Judge
ment in this case was entered by consent for the
plaintiff, with 81 damages. Mr.. ]. NJ. Davidson ap-
Peared for the plaintiff and Mr.. E.. Preston for the
defendants.
FRIDAY, JANUARY, 7th.-Kulia ct al vs. Puowaina
ct al. Ejectment. A jury was not called in this
case. Judgment was given in favor of the plaintiffs
for half the land only, as per disclaimer, and for
costs. Mr.. l.. Holokahiki for the plaintiffs and Mr..
Cecil Brown for the defendants.
David Kama (k) VS. Hoa (k) ct al. Ejectment. In
this case a verdict, from which three jurors dissent
for the plaintiff and Messrs. Castle and Hatch for
the defendant.
DIVORCE CASES.
SATURDAY, JANUARY 8th.-According to the usual
custom, Saturday was devoted to Divorce Cases, of
which, as will be seen by the Calender published in
this issue of the ADVERTISER, there was a smaller list
than at last session.
Julia F. Gihon VS. Charles A. Gihon. In this case
a divorce was granted and the defendant was mulcted
in costs 800. Mr.. A. S. Hartwell appeared for the
libellant.
Homau (k) vs. Haleaka. This case in which Mr..
K. f. Bickerton was acting for the libellant, fell
to the ground through the death of Homau who thus
obtained from a higher Court the relief he was seek
ing.
Kahoki (w) vs. Makai. After part of the evidence
had been taken, the case was adjourned in order that
further testimony might be brought forward, Mr..
). w. Mahelona appeared as counsel for the libellant.
Nainoelua TX vs. Maimae. Nainoelua. who appear
ed in person to conduct his case, obtained the divorce
sought for.
Kuehiu (w) VS. Pail. Mr.. j. L. KauIukou ap-
peared for Kuehiu and obtained a judgment in her
favor with costs S25.
Hookoni IVY vs. Kaunahi. In this case also Mr..
appeared for the libellant. A divorce was
granted with costs $25.
CRIMINAL cAsEs.-FoREIGN JURY
MONDAY, JANUARY 10th.-The King vs. S. S.
Landerschut. Attempting to bride public officers.
having gained the affections of a young
lady, whose relations were violently opposed to the
match, endeavored to marry her secretly. He ap-
piled to the Office of the Department of the Interior, |
where q license was refused him on the ground that
he had no evidence TO snow OF MS olVOrce from O
marriage which he alleged had been
by a Californian Court. In his anxiety to |
the difficulties thus encountered, he made |
offers to two of the officers of the Department, which
Mr.. W. C.. Jones, as his counsel, endeavored to show
we're of such a character as not to come within a lust
of a bride. The jury took a different view |
and brought ia a verdict of guilty. 4
The King VS. Lea Pong. Receiving stolen goods.
The accused, who was defended by Mr.. A. s. Hart
we'll, had purchased some copper, which turned out
to have been stolen. The presumption that Lea Pong
knew that he was buying stolen property was ground
ID on the fact that the thief was actually at the time
IF the sale suffering sentence for a previous larceny,
and were the usual dungaree costume Of q convict.
Il was shown for the defense, that the prisoners
,lothes showed no mark of The prison brand, and
that there was nothing in his appearance to distin-
yuish him from any ordinary laborer for whom dun
yaree smock and trousers would in this climate be a
highly suitable outfit. He was evidently lat large"
IT he could not have committed the new theft, sold
he stolen goods and INDUCED himself in a drinking
aloon with the proceeds, His Honor remarked that
Iuch a style of serving S sentence would be looked
lpon as peculiar had it happened in the neighborhood
f Milbank or Sing Sing The jury brought in q YER
of not guilty.
The King VS. Wing Kok. Larceny. The accused
pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to six months