The Hawaiian gazette., 1883-03-07

A Celebrated Case.
In connection with the corouation of His Majesty
series oil hnias had been arranged for the even
ing Of the 18th ut but the weather not permitting
the performances did not take place until the 9th
They were arranged by those in authority and
were brought to the Gasefte Office to be printed
their official character being passport that they
were couched IN proper language, permission
had been obtained by the person who provided
the manuscript TO use the Royal ooat-of-arms
After publication it was found that some of the
language used was thought TO be obscene and on q
complaint made by W. Il. Castle Esq. Mr.. Il
Grove, one of the propritors of the printing es'
tablishment was brought before Judge Bickerton
on the 2nd inst charged with the printing of the
Objectionable matter.
A. 5. Hartvell ESD. appeared as counsel foi
Mr.. Grieye and TO facilitate matters the plea OF
guilty was made with the extenuation that Mr..
Grieye was ignorant of the matter contained
Mr.. Hartwell said thai the manuscript in question
had been placed in the hands of the foreman OF
the establishment, Mr.. James Aud, Hawaiian
by birth, who had not seemed to find anything of
an Objectionable nature IN it and 1t was printed as
ordered. The programme after being printed
passed from the control of his client and he had
no hand in the Publishing of it. He desired His
Honor TO pass Judgment, but to have an view the
extenuating circumstances, Mr.. Grieye being to-
tally ignorant of the meanings of the Objectionable
document.
Although a copy of the programme had accom-
panied the complaint Judge Bickerton declined to
gramme were made to enable him TO judge of the
extent of the offence. His Honor stated that
although he was acquainted with the Hawaiian
language he did not consider himself competent
TO decide upon the meaning of the words which
had been pointed out TO him as Questionable.
Mr.. Castle the complainant and prosecutor,
Attorney General Preston having declined to serve,
stated that he had read the programme of the
hHlds' as printed and having asked some Hawaii
ans the meaning Of certain words that he did not
understand, was told their Objectionable nature.
His knowledge was obtained from hearsay and
not from actual acquaintance with the words.
Judge Bckerton decided that an official trans
lation should be furnished him before proceeding
further and the case was adjourned until last
Monday ON which day it was again taken up, MIR.
Hartwell appearing for Dir Grieve; Mr.. Castle
SECOND DAN
Mr.. Hartwell for his client withdrew the plea of
guilty which had been prevideSly made, and
substituted plea of g not guilty" ID the follow
ing testimony was taken.
X. Grieve. The programme showifRnd entitled
3" Papa Kuhikuhi ma hula POM Md&' i recog-
niz as having been printed at my dblshment
did not then nor do now know of my owl knowl-
edge the meaning of the words and phras& there
in contained. understood that the performances
were to take place at the Palace. No one connecs
ted with my establishment got up or assisted in
getting up the original manuscript. The manu-
script was brought to my office by Mr.. William
Aud and given TO my foreman lanes Alld, he
being the working foreman and having charge of
native Jobs. as he Is q Hawaiian ana unuerstAnds
the language. lie did not seem TO md anything
Objectionable in the manuscript. was not in at
the time the manuscript came. had no CONVEX
sation with William Amid: he transacted his
business with james Aud was afterwards told
il was list Of Coronation hulas, it was to be
finished by the 18th, Coronation day. The Royal
cOat-of-arms was placed on the work by an order
from the Palace / understood by order of His
Maiesty's Chamberlain c. II. Judd. The first
proof taken did not have the coat-of-arms on.
was led TO suppose that printing this for use
in Coronation ceremonies. Ii was distributed by
other parties, had nothing TO do with that. l
was,drected TO send my bill to Walter Murray Glib
son as the chairman of the Coronation committee
did send il last Thursday. My foreman has
gone to Maui ! hear, and has not returned yet TO
my knowledge. ! had nothing to do with publish
ing it, did not circulate copy of it.
Cross examined by Mr.. Castle. My foreman
found nothing Objectionable to my knowledge,
there were no remarks made about it. If there
had been anything unusual in the contents, the
natives whom employ would have been apt TO
remark it. Am not in the habit of having the
nature of native manuscript explained to me.
William Aud, testified gave the manuscript
to James Aud, after printing first proof took
copy and asked permission to put the Royal coat-of-
arms on il. His Maiesty's Chamberlain G. II.
Judd, gave me permission TO do so. Obtained the
original manuscript from the hHla masters. Did
not have any converse with Mr.. Grieve regarding
printing. ] read the first proof myself at my
office did not take the copy to the Chamberlain,
after the programmes were all struck of they
were sent TO the CnamDerlalns once.
A. $. Hariwell Esq. for the defence argued that
his client had no knowledge whatever of the
meanings contained in the document and thereby
established absolute defence. Whether the
court found that the programme contained obscene
language or not, the question was did not MIR.
Grieve's Ignorance of the nature of the publica-
ton, make him innocentI What publisher in
the world would have done different from the
defendant The clerk of the Honolulu Water
Works brings the manuscript to the native fore
man of the printing establishment and orders the
printing. The foreman causes proof to be read
by the party who brought the manuscript. A
change l. made the Royal coat-Of arms is added
by permission Of HIS Maiesty's Chamberlain G.
II. Judd. BY special direction the work when
done Is forwarded TO the Chamberlain's Office and
from there distributed. As far as the defendant
was concerned Mr.. Hartwell considered that he
was entitled 10 an acquittal and he hoped the
court would consider that IL was important to the
defendant that he should be indicated, judicially
MIR. W. h. Castle for the Crown, said that from
the nature of the circumstances he considered that
Mr.. Grieye was responsible as proprietor of the es-
Enlistment at which the document was printed.
There was no question but that the defendant
knew that the programmes were being printed the
only question being how far man carrying on a
business Is personally responsible for the acts of
his employees or agents He did not charge Mr..
Grieve with being cognizant of the obscene matter
contained in the document under adjudication as
he was satisfied that Mr. Grieye did not then nor
does now understand the native as printed.
Mr.. Hartwell said that the intent must be shown
before the defendant could be found guilty as
charged A great many instances occur where per
sons are presumed guilty without the intent being
proven but in this the intent should be clearly
shown. This was a question of how far it is the
duty of the proprietor OF printing establishment
TO make himself familiar with the contents of doc
uments presented to him in foreign languages, for
printing. He thought that civil action in the
case might be sustained If any one was proved TO
be slandered etc, but not criminal action. Judge
Hartwell asked leave to file brief the subject
Tptart and orrrbn VIII
Honor allowed. The case here rested and until
notice Is given by the Court.
ANOTHER VICTIM.
Mr. William Aud, charged with publishing the
document which Mr.. Grieve was charged with
printing, also brought before his Honor at the
Police Court on the 2d inst, and pleaded mot
guilty. continuance was had until the 9th inst,
on which latter date John Russell Esq, the counsel
for the defendant asked for further continuance
until the Sth inst, The request was granted by
Judge Bickerton, the prosecution offering no OBJ
lccuon.