The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1883-07-14
THE CHARGE OF THE CHiEF-JUSTICE

to the Jury in the first libel suit
against newspaper on these islands
(the Kawainui Bros. case) was as
follows:- Many years ago in that
great country, England, from which
we have received most Of the laws
at present in existence here, no one
could publish anything except they
first got the consent of the Govern
ment. But the progress of civiliza-
ton and the spread of free ideas has
liberated the press from that thral-
dom, and we find the present cond-
tion of things in the Bird Article of
the Hawaiian constitution
A libel is publication in writing
print or by picture statue sign or
representation other than by words
merely spoken which tend to injure
the fame reputation or good name of
another person and to bring him
into disgrace adherence odium
hatred contempt or ridicule or cause
him to be excluded from society.
and this is the law in all civilized
countries now.
This is the first case in this King
dom where the newspaper publisher is
sought to be held responsible. 1t is
moved by the party who believes
himself injured, but this should not
weigh in your minds (although
alluded to by counsel for both sides)
as large majority of the cases
brought before Courts are so done
at the instance of the person ag-
grieved.
We have no Attorney General at
present, and even if we had it would
not be improper to employ private
counsel.
All men may freely speak, write,
and publish their sentiments on all
subjects being responsible for the
abuse of that right and no law shall
be enacted to restrain the liberty of
speech or of the press except such
laws as may be necessary for the
protection of His Majesty the King
and Royal Family.
1t has been said by counsel that
there is civil charge pending and
that should be enough remedy but it
is also made criminal offence in
the interests of Society. You can
see the wisdom of this law as then
man without any means could vilify
the whole community, and the escape
punishment from his inability to
satisfy the civil damages granted.
AS the law has never been put in
operation before against newspaper
it speaks well both for the commu-
nifty and the newspapers.
beg of you not to enter into the
consideration of this case as if there
were sides to it. You must recol-
lect that there is a certain Liberty of
the Press. No country could have
its liberties without it and it has
been well said that it is the - Pal
ladium of liberty" in all countries.
There are five points to which l
wish to draw your attention III this
case and the first two you will be
able easily to satisfy yourselves on:
The first is--Did defendants pub
lish the article in question? 1t does
not matter who wrote 1.-THE offence
is in publishing it. 1t must not
weigh on your minds if Mr.. j. U.
Kawainui did agree to disclose the
name and now, on the advice of
counsel, declines to do so. If he
did disclose it it would not neces-
sarily absolve him from prosecution
# the injured party so wished.
(2nd). Did the Article COM
planned of refer to Mr.. Richardson
The defendants admit this as you
have heard proved by the evidence
of the Police Magistrate.
(3rd). is the article libellous?
Is it defamatory to Mr.. Richardson's
character so that he has suffered in
reputation!
(4th). If you find it is 80, are
the facts stated true? Then
(5th). Were they published with
good motive?
put in your hands matter which
is not always left for jury to de-
cide-that is whether the matter com
,Nl,;nn1 nf 4, l;bolInns ~, NOT II hoe