The Hawaiian gazette., 1883-03-14
The Celebrated Case Continued.

On las TAuEsiay. the Sih ms the cass OF Rex
rs Eo5srs Grisys- n which the 5sfsudau; z=Es
charged v5th he printing OF The nov renowned
'-C1-u-Itio1 Hula Pro-r2m1re.- r. vss SEain eaIlai
IN the Polioe Court. and Iudee Bicks-1o1 yzlo had
ressryed his decision fruu tie Srt Instant prs-
s51tsd the following judgment n answer 10 The
hr1si q hon- A : HarIEell- the counsel for de-
feldanfs Ehn had introd1oe5 spsciaI Plea uf want
q intent BY his client 20 GO a1ythiac oua1rzrv -
sz. and also tie abSol1fe ignorance Of Mr Grlsvs
OF TIE nature q The contents Of tie document
SEzch SEEMED 20 have had oshcisl sauc.io1 The n
tie peCe beng Eraosd BY the Royal coat-o.-srrls
51dee Bscksrso1 ssiG- Il Lsva csraf-lIv o1rsi5-
end the SPECIAL asfs1oe made bT tt dess-deut
that Il should he acquitted ugfin, tha
contents of the ALLEGED QtscsDe doc-ueut for -
re-sol that lie had. and has u0- nov anv knozI-
edge q Is couis-ts and that he / iero-t Of ths
HAWAIIAN language. and that hiS foreman an, TN.
slsrs dld 10. inform hin OF there being auTrhS-r
od=oe-e o. ohseC1lu-ahle II sid d1cuuerI- and
that Be merely all0ved his enployes 10 rruvi5a
T1I'e- n tie Hawaiian language az tha rso-eSt OF
an employee of the Hawaiian Go7srnuaat--
i have carefully considered the authorities cited
by The Defendants counsel and uttzr s-tho-s-ieS
II noe! Gases and cannot ind thai the authu7i-
les II libel caseS apply 20 case Of this mature In
tesss c=ss i has bee1 he'd that II dsFe-d-ut hs5
10 k1oElslcs thai tks article publishsi =as Eibs-
o1s- sso that Il be had 10 ku1Eis5cs Of the psr7v
intended he has done 10 wrolr- / do ~ fhi1Ls
cse q TINS nature can b controlled bv thsse an
tco-I-les- lle defendant Z rrc--ietgr lo- urz Of
tEe Trl-leiu-S Of & printing o--ice. ard usrso-sI-
u n,3nases Il ! think Il Eouid Be z ds-rero-s
thing 70. courts 70 hold that such uerson shozl5
1ot be 6sl1 rer,1-sible for al rat.er that r-ss-
tro1Ca his printing p1esSas. OF that Ignorance Of
ne sa11zce II Which i : written should erousr-
ate hirn. fesl Il i nv dliy to hold that il zzs
alc L tie duty Of defendant 20 III ke himself fullv
acquainted EIth the nature Of the contents OF sii
T1aits- 70 be printed II his once ID whatsoever
iaI1age Il rnay b written. II this vsre not 50 The
responsibility might b shifted frurn one 10 auo.
10 one he'd responsible lie respousibility mas.
rss1 sonsEhsre and IN this ozss rlust rest With t.
Therefore cannot acqui. the defendant
on TINS oetenoe- Ihe csse =il have 70 % On and
eyloeoe he pzs u Of ths lat-s Of tie contents OF
ne alleged obsoe1s OF immoral pamphlet
A ; harIEel- Esq-- the defendants c5ulss7.
=lreu hls Honor 70 e.te The Authorities uhicl his
Eto1oT oio Eoi CONSIDER applying % the czse. A
souEs argument sls1ed betEeen the CJart ind
o0unsei ending BY Mr. HaTtzen declaring that BE- /
zas nos inclined 70 50 into examination Of i've I
7T1re q the contents uf this ALLEGED oficial doe
zro-1t 1t5ozEh Stamped zith The impress Of RoT-
4. authority, for. c0unsel sid if the ooutsuts ver
u the nastInsss which be had heard limited b
zozd not under any Circumstances care 70 unravgl
he z7eaai1s- knowing thai his client and himself
=e-e - ignorant Of them hs preferred his Honor
10 ps2ss Judgment
he case ended hers for tas day Ezith tbs zhrl.r;
sess aad the Cozrt p-ooeeded vith hearing TIE I
- Of