The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1885-02-04

81 Dc tOHlF " ah'S"titg
-
Upon an Information by the Attorney-Gen-
eral charging that the above named othcer
ahas committed offences in mis- official capaci-
ty. such as render him totally unit to hold the
position Of District Justice as aforesaid:
The specific charges are of corruptly demand
Ing and receiving $3.50 from plaintiff for
whom he had rendered Judgment for $500,
and for refusing-to return 81, deposited with
him for an action which was never brought.
Also for repeated and long continued absences
from his district for periods Of three success
siye weeks at various times, whereby 1t was
rendered impracticable 10 bring. civil OF cTl=
minal business before him; and, generally, for
willful neglect, incompetency 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,
plant is that the Magistrate be dismissed
from office.
In respect 10 the frst charge the respondent
offers his own testimony and that OF !, d,
Poepoe, Esq, an attorney -at-iaw, to SHOW tnaI
this amount which equals the attorneys com
missions as taxed by law in assumpsit was
demanded and received by Poepoe from the
plaintiff, anticipating its collection from the
defendant 1t was i'll advised Of the magis--
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 plaintiff
store TO 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 (perhaps on
| the Judgment for 5000, as the case was for 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.
Wehave 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 OF
keeping accounts is such that fraud cannot be
detected. He fails to make entries of cases
where costs arc received and the case may be
Withdrawn by settlement out Of court. We
are unable TO understand the course of bis
receipts from the beginning up TO his return
to the Public Auditor. In respect to d
fraudulent detention OF any money we are left
in doubt, and We may say unfavOrable doubt,
|
proved.
In regard 10 the charge Of absence from his
district 10 such an extent as 70 impair the
right of the community of that district to have
a court for civil and criminal business, we
find it to be we'll sustained by proofs. The
respondents own admissions 70 far towards
supporting tho charge lie says he could no
procure a dwelling in the district until lately
We cannot admit his excuse as sufficient FOL
the long continuous absences. He was bound
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 DC ii
further shown TO have failed TO attend at I'll,
day appointed for trials, whereby numbers 0
person were kept waiting for him till after
noon aud left the place without doing thei
business.
1t was also made 10 appear that he charged
unusual and inadmissible items as costs
charging ten cents for the blanks used 70
subp9nas, summons, &c. and in the case o
delinquent taxpayers charging one dollar II
the nature Of commissions.
From this sketch it appears that there ar
many delinquencies and errors Of this magis
, trate to be condemned.
; 1t is possible to take charitable view Q
his conduct and to find that he is not guilty 0
fraud or of willful neglect ofduty. He has Blu
two months now remaining Of his term of tw
years. There can be no Judgment Of suspen
sion from Office, for the law does not provid
for it, moreover the Office cannot be lei
vacant In view of the brief time remaining
and of the consideration that the e1aminatio
now had with the instruction and censure {
the Court upon the Irregularities and defcien
cies discovered, may correct the irregularitie
6 IN