The Hawaiian gazette., 1883-03-07

In connection with the coronation of His Majesty
a series Of hai1s had been arranged for the even
ing Of the 18th ult but the weather not permitting
the performances did not take place until the 9th.
/ They were arranged by those in authority and
| were brought 10 the Gazette office TO be printed
their official character being a passport that they
| were cOuched II proper language, as permission
| had been obtained by the person who provided
! the manuscript TO Use the Royal coat-of arms.
| After publication it was found that some of the
! language used was thought TO be obscene and On
complaint made by W. Il. Castle Esq. Mr.. II.
Gueve, one Of the propritOrs Of the printing es-
I tablishmout was brought before Judge Bckerton
on the md inst. charged with the printing of the
/ Objectionable matter.
4. s Hanwel ESQ, appeared as counsel for
Mr.. Grieye and TO facilitate matters the plea of
| guilty was made with the extenuation that Mr..
| Grove ignorant of the matter contained.
Mr.. Hartwel said that the manuscript in question
had been placed in the hands Of the foreman of
! tho establishment, Mr.. James Aud, Hawaiian
by birth who had no: seemed to find anything of
Objectionable nature in it ana 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 in view the
eItenuating 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 BckertOn declined to
render judgment until TRANSACTIONS of the pro-
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
10 decide upon the meaning Of the words which
had been pointed out to him as Objectionable.
Mr. Castle the complainant and prosecutor,
Attorney General Preston having declined TO serve,
stated that he had read the programme of the
hfflHs' 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 BickertOn decided that an official trans
latiou should be furnished him before proceeding
further and the case was adjourned until last
Monday on which day it was again taken up, Mr..
Hartwell appearing for Mr.. Grieve; Mr.. Castle
prosecuting
Dir. HartWel for his client withdrew the plea of
guilty which had been previously made, and
substituted plea Of &c not guilty and the follow
ING testimony was taken.
X. Grieye. The programme shown and entitled
" Papa Kuhikuhi o ma hula POM Moi recog-
uIZ as having been printed at my establishment
did not then nor do now know of my own knOwl-
edge the meaning Of the words and phrases there
IN contained. / understood that the performances
were TO take place at the Palace. No one connec-
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 James AUDI he |
being the working foreman and having charge of
native Jobs, as he is a Hawaiian and understands |
the language. He did not seem to find anything l
Objectionable in the manuscript. / was not in at
the time the manuscript came. had no CONVEX |
satiou with William AUDI he transacted his |
business with James Aud. was atteTWArus told i
it was a list Of Coronation hulas, it was TO be /
finished by the 18th, Coronation day The Royal |
coat-Ofams 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 oOat-of-arms on. l |
was led to suppose that was printing this for use
in Coronation ceremonies. 1t vas distributed by |
other parties, had nothing to do with that. / 1
was dir 3ced TO send my bill TO Walter Murray Glib
as the chairman Of the Coronation committee.
1 did send it last Thursday. My foreman has
hoe No. 4 - a..
my knowledge. / had nothing to do with publish
Ing It, did not circulate copy Of 1t.
Cross examined by Mr.. Castle. My foreman
found nothing Objectionable to my knowledge,
thOrg were no remarks made about it. If there
had been anything unusual in the contents, the
natives whom I employ wOdld have been apt to
remark II. Am not IN the habit OF having the
nature Of native manuscript explained to me.
William Aud, testified gave the manuscript
90 James Aud, after printing first proof took
copy and asked permission to put the Royal coatof
arms 1t. His Maiesty.- Chamberlain c. II.
Judd. gave me permission to do so. Obtained the
original manuscript from tins hHi1 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 Chamberlain's office.
A. s Hartwell 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
Grieye'5 Ignorance Of the nature Of the publica-
ton, make him innocent! 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.
change Is 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
fTUTU there IIsfFllmfgl. As far the defendant |
was concerned Mr.. Hartwell considered that he
was entitled to an acquittal and he hoped the
court would consider that it was important TO the
defendant that he should be indicated, judicialy
Mr. W. r. Castle, for the Grown, said that from
the nature Of the circumstances he considered that
Mr. Grove was responsible as proprietor of the es-
Enlistment at which the document was printed.
There WIS 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..
GFigyg with being cOguiZaut of the obscene matter
contained in the document under adjudication as
hcwas satisfied that Mr. Grieve did not then nor
does nov understand the native as printed.
Mr. Hartwell said that the intent must be shown
before the defendant could be found guilty as
charged. great many instances occur where per-
proven, but in this case 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 20
be slaudered etc, but not criminal action. Judge
Hartwell asked leave to file brief on the subject
Of Intent and present authorities which his
Honor allowed. The case here rested and until
notice is given by the Court.
ANOTuEE VICTIM
Mr.. William Aud, charged with publishing the
document which Mr.. Grieve was charged with
printing, was also brought before his Honor at the
Police Court on the I'd inst, and pleaded not
guilty. A 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
Judne Blckertln. the nrosecution Offering no OBJ |