Saturday press. [volume] (Honolulu, H.I.) 1880-1885, 1883-03-10
TIE cOMvoN NUISANCE CASE.

IHh COEHON NCIoINCE CASE.
The case of the Crown versus Robert Grieve
for common nuisance, in printing programme
of the Coronation hulas, came up on remand
before the Police Court on Wednesday last.
The defendant having previously entered a
plea Of guilty now asked to withdraw shat plea
and put in plea of "not guilty." which he
was allowed to do.
Mr.. Grieve sworn said, that he was ignorant
of Hawaiian, and could neither read nor un-
derstand the wording of the programme he had
been arraigned for printing Upon being shown
the document in court he said he recognized it
as one printed at his Office. He simply knew
it was programme of the hulas which were to
form part Of the Coronation celebration this
he knew through information received from his
foreman Mr.. James Aud who was then absent
on Maui. So far as he knew no one connected
with his office had had any connection with the
production of the document in question. The
manuscript had been furnished to the office by
Mr.. William Aud. From his hands it had
passed Immediately to those of the foreman of
the Office, whose duty it is, in particular, to
attend personally to Native jobs, he being pro-
icient in his knowledge Of that language Mr..
Aud Qoreman) had not hinted to him any
thing in regard to the immoral nature of the
writing. He 'Grieve) was not there when the
manuscript was brought in. He believed that
the Hawaiian coat-of.arms had been placed
upon the programme at the instance Of the
Kings Chamberlain. The original proof which
was sent out lacked the coat -of-arms; and it
was subsequently added, by order. Copies of
the same programme had been distributed
about the Palace yard among the company
present on the 24th of February last. Mr.
Grieve said he had been directed to present his
bill to W. NJ. Gibson (Premier) who was
Chairman of the Coronation Committee. He
said he had nothing whatever to do with the
publication or distribution Of the programme
Cross examined, he said he was not in the
habit of examining Hawaiian manuscript but
had no reason to suspect from anything uttered
by the foreman, or any of the hands, that the
programme contained anything immoral
| Mr.. William Amid said handed the manu-
script to my brother James, who is foreman of
the Gazette Office; read the proof myself at my
own Office; asked permission from the Cham
berain to have the coat-of arms placed on the
front page. received the original from the
Hula Master. l did not show the proof to
the Chamberlain. The job when finished was
sent by Mr.. Grieve at my direction to the office
of the Chamberlain, at the Palace.
Mr.. Hartwell, attorney for the defendant,
said, that the nature of the document was
matter of Indifference to him as affecting his
clients case, as the Developments already
made, had been sufficient to establish an abso-
lutte defence. This was one of these cases
wherein guilty knowledge was essential to the
offence, and without the actual existence and
proof of which, the law presumes innocence.
Contributive negligence upon the part of Mr..
Grieve might be argued; but he held that Mr..
Grieve had only acted as any other man would
have acted under like circumstances in purely
business tranaction. Those circumstances
were such as were best calculated to allay sus-
picion. There was no publisher anywhere
who would have acted differently under like
circumstances. The fact that clerk in gov
ernment employ should have been the one who
furnished the manuscript and ordered it
printed; that the thing itself was connected
with the Coronation festivities; that the royal
coat -of-arms should have been imprinted upon
its title page by order of the Chamberlain:
and that the job, when finished, had been Oh
dered to be sent to the Chamberlans Office,
were sufficient as facts, to relieve his client of
any responsibility that might under other cir
cumstances have attached to the needless pub.
lication Of an immoral document. What the
actual contents Of the programme were, he did
not know, and was very glad that it had not
fallen to him to make an investigation. But
whatever they might be, Mr.. Grievehad estab-
lished for himself an absolute defense, and was
| entitled to an acquitta
The prosecuting attorney, Mr.. w. X. Castle
| said, he did not doubt the statement of Mr..
Grieve as regarded his ignorance OF the Ha.
waan, and his innocence of intent as to the
publication; the only question which remained
was, whether or not the act itself was illegal
and il so, whether or not Mr.. Grieve, as the
printer, had exercised that reasonable care in
the conduct Of his business as applied to this
matter that the law presumes will be exercised
In the conduct Of business establishment every.
where.