The Hawaiian gazette., 1885-02-04


Hmm an Information by the Attorney Gen
eral charging that the above named otncer
ob.s committed offences ia mis- official capacl-
~ such as render him totally unfit to hold the
nosition of District Justice as aforesaid,
The specific charges are OF corruptly demand.
;np and receiving $3.50 from plaintiff Tor
whom he had rendered Judgment for SUN
and for refusingto return 81, deposited Win
him for an action which was never Drought
Also for repeated and long continued absences
from his district for periods OF three success
s;vo peeks at various times, whereby 1t was
rendered impracticable TO bring clyll o. CT
minal business before him; and, generally, tor
willful neglect, incompetency1 and -unftness TO
hold the Office. This proceeding is had BY
authority of amended section 9l4, page zo|
| Compiled Laws, and the prayer OF the com,
plaint is that the Magistrate be dismissed
| from Office.
In respect 10 the first charge the respondent
offers his own testimony and that OF JIM.
Poepoe, ESQ, an attorncy-at-law, to show that
This amount which equals the attorneys com
missions as taxed by law in assumpslt was
demanded and received by Poepoe IRON the
| plaintiff, anticipating its collection from the
/ defendant. 1t was i'll advised of the magls-
| trate TO concern himself between attorney. and
client in demanding or collecting fees. HIS
name is attached TO tho receipt as II he had
received this sum, and he went to plalntlfi
| store 10 ask or demand it. We give him the
benefit Of his evidence and find him guilty
only of gross indiscretion and not OF fraud.
Respecting the item of four dollars received
as costs, the defendant claims that two dollars
of it was required for execution lperhaps on
the Judgment for 5000, as the case was Tor the
same plaintiff, and that he told the. plaintiff
he would pay him the remaining two dollars,
but that his money was all at Eva, and the
demand was made on him in Honolulu. This
appears to us to be an evasion.
Wehaye examined the plaintiffs accounts
at large and called on him to explain various
discrepancies appearing in them and further
appearing by comparison with accounts kept
by the Deputy Sheriff. His explanations are
evasive and unsatisfactory. His method o.
keeping accounts is such that fraud cannot bt
detected. He fails to make entries OF easel
where costs are received and the case may b.
withdrawn by settlement ont Of court. w
, are unable 10 understand the course of hi
receipts from the beginning up TO his returi
TO the Public Auditor. In respect to
fraudulent detention OF any money we are lei
In doubt, and We may say unfavorable doubt
but cannot affirm that any item of fraud i
proved.
In regard to tue charge OF absence from hi
district 10 such an extent as 10 impair th
right of the community of that district to .hay
a court for civil and criminal business, VI
find it to be well sustained by proofs. Th
! respondents own admissions 70 far toward
supporting the charge. lie says he could nc
procure a dwelling in the district until lately
We cannot admit his excuse as sufficient 10
\ the long continuous absences. He was bOun
by accepting Office to be in his district at leas
on stated days Of every week, at some known
! and if possible convenient locality. But ne
further shown to have failed 10 attend at til
day appointed for trials, whereby numbers
person were kept waiting for him till after
noon and left the place without doing the
g business.
b 1t was also made TO appear that lie charge
II unusual and inadmissible items as cost
charging ten cents for the blanks used ft
|. subpGnas, summons, SC. and in the case
delinquent taxpayers charging one dollar
the nature of commissions.
From this sketch it appears that there al
many deliDquencies and errors Of this magi
% trate to be condemned.
e 1t is possible to take a charitable view
n. his conduct and to find that he is not guilty
in fraud or of willful neglect of duty. He has b
two months now remaining of his term of tv
years. There can be no Judgment Of suspe
sion from Office, for the law does not PROVE
J. for it, moreover the Office cannot be Ii
. vacant. In view of the brief time remainin
and of the consideration that the e1aminati
now had with the instruction and cenSure
the Court upon the Irregularities and defcie
cies discovered, may correct the irregulariti
= of his administration; we are Of opinion th
the public service will not suffer by allowil
< the respondent TO continue in Office till Apr
> when his commission expires leaving it th
10 the appointing power to consider, upon
past record, and his conduct during the I
naming time whether it will be advisable
renew his commission.
Antoine Rosa for the complainant; j. NJ. Pc
poe and W. L. Holokahiki for the responds
= Honolulu, Jan. 26th, 1886.