The Hawaiian gazette., 1883-04-11

until made sure, beyond every possibility Of
mistake, that they were right, earthly affairs
would cease to move and staguation, death,
and universal decay would follow. All,
therefore, must, and constantly do, perform
whatelse they would not, through mistake
Of facts. Iftheir minds are pure, If they care
fully inquire after the truth, but are misled,
no Just law will punish them, however crimi-
nal their acts would have been if prompted BY
any evil motive, and executed with the real
facts in mind"
In the law, therefore, the wrongful intent
being the essence of every crime, it necessa-
rily follows that when one is misled, without
fault or caTelessness, concerning facts, and
while so misled, acts as he would be justified
in doing were they what he believes them TO
be; he is illegally innocent, the same as he is
innocent morally" ID.
The doctrine is, that one may be oriminally
responsible where the act itself necessarily
implies either direct evil intent, or that kind
Of indifference, Tecklessness, or carelessness
to which the law attaches the same coBse-
duences as if an actually evil intent existed
The Penal Code defines malice as not only
doing wrong or injury to any person or
persons or to the public" but also as acting
with a needless, reckless disregard, or gross
negligence Of the life or lives, the health or
personal safety, or legal rights or privileges
of another or Others" also, the Iriiym VIC
lation of n legal duty or obligation, and 'riLyfh
contravention Of law"
Penal Code, Chap. l Sect. 8:
In Rex. VS.. Hicklin, 3, Q. B., 800, tlS6S),
leading case on the subject of innocent
motive for publishing an obscene pamphlet, it
is held that such mOtire is no defence; but, if
there is no knowledge, there can be no motive,
good or bad, there is no "HIe'ls red."
In r. rs. Wat, Nod l29, defendant was
released from criminal charge of libel on the
Courts of Kings Bench, being the selling of a
book in the Latin language, on his affidavit
that lie did not understand the language.
So it was held that defendants are not
| criminally liable in the following cases, viz ::
al. Where postman carries sealed letter.
Per Lord Kenyon in R. VS.. TOpham, Term,
l29. 80. Or parcel in which libelling hand
bills were wrapped up.
Day VS.. Brean, 2, NJ. & X. So. "3. or
where the defendant could not read"
Per Lord Kenyon, G. j., in R. VS.. Holt, 5
Term, 4i4, "and even if the defendant read
the libel, still if the words are on the face Of
them innocent and only became defamatory
when their meaning was pointed out by certain
extrinsic fact and circumstances wholly IN
|
be unconscious that what he published was a
libel, and such publication would be deemed
| innocent: or where the libel was contained as
an allegory or riddle, to ,rhieh The defendant
had no clue. Again. where the defandents
copied q libel knowing it to be libel, and
afterwards inadvertently delivered such copy
to third person in mistake for some other
paper, it is submitted that he would not be
held criminally liable for such an accident,
though he would be held liable in civil case. "
Citing R. VS.. Hervey, 4, B. G. 257, Odgea on
Libel and SANDER p. 35i.
If it comes then, as think it does, to ques'
ton whether this defendant is shown, by the
evidence, to have acted with needless,
reckless, disregard, or gross negligence, u
submit that he should be acquitted on the evil
dence, as well as on the law. So far from being
shown to have acted in that manner, he is not
shown TO have acted at all, but merely not to
have prevented his native foreman from print
ing document purporting to emanate from an
| official source