The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1886-08-12

at 2 p. m. that afternoon. 1t is efident
that Marshal soper and Achoy Under
stood each other; the Marshal az much
as says so. Achoy says II did
not speak to anyone before
went to the store about opium" In the
first part Of his testimony he says he
only went in TO look about he further
says positively that defendant bargained
for thirty-seven tins of opium. He con-
tradicts himself several times as to where
he went after leaving defendants store
on both visits. First he says he went TO /
the wharf; then he says he went up .
Fort street to Dodd's stables; then he /
says he went straight to the Government /
House, after second visit, looked at the
clock and found it was o'clock.
Now, what is the defense? Defend
ants evidence is a denial of the evidence
of Ahuna and Achoy; and he testifies as
to his whereabouts that day. His
whereabouts are also testified to by
Messrs. Roche, Levey, Stillman, David
Naone and Ward Mr.. Writings evil
dence shows Mr.. Levey's evidence to be
correct, or nearly so. If Ahuna's and
Achoy's statement is true then all these
gentlemen have testified falsely; at
least the Court would so have to find.
There can be no doubt in an unbiased
mind that defendant was at St. Louis
College exhibition on Friday afternoon
that he was before that at L. J. Levey's
auction room with Mr.. Roche awaiting
for Captain Arnaud, while he was Al
Mr.. Writings doing business. Ahuna
sWears positively that defendant was at
the store all the afternoon. If the de-
PENDANT was the principal in this affair,
then Ahuna and AchOy were his accom-
plices, and they were concerned in I'M
lawful traffic 1t is possible for both
their statements to be true, and if one is
taken to be true, then the evidence of
the guilty knowledge of the defendant
consists of the evidence of an accomplice,
unsupported and uncorroborated, and it
will not be contended by any legal gen
tlemen that a conviction can be had
| under those circumstances.
The theory of the defense that there
was a conspiracy and put-up job OF
Ahuna and Achoy to put the opium
| there for the purpose of convicting de-
PENDANT, either out of revenge or for
! gain, is not in my mind tenable. The
quantity of opium was too large; one or
two tins would have been enough, If that
was the object. But it may be that
Ahuna was dealing with AchOy, who,
for gain, betrayed him, and Achoy see
ing more prospect of a larger gain in his
/ share of fine, etc, if the case was made
against defendant, who probably was
better able to pay heavy fine, agreed
with Ahuna to shift it upon defendant.
am inclined to think all the opium
was not in the store when the bargain was
made. On examination l find it con-
sists of four distinct lots. We will take
a case to illustrate how any man might
be placed in defendants position and be
perfectly innocent: A has B in his en-
ploy at his store, who he trusts and
carelessly leaves alone in charge of store
for perhaps days at a time, as defend
ant has done with Ahuna. B makes a
bargain with one G. to sell and deliver
to him opium at certain time and at
the store of A. G may be an informer
and B not know it. The servant B
watches his chance and takes the opium
into his masters store and places it out
of sight. The informer c comes at the
appointed time, followed by the officers,
who find the opium in the store A,
the master, is placed in about the same
position that this defendant is in. Ger
tainly the prosecution could not, would
not and do not ask for or expect con-
viction unless it is fully warranted by
the law and the evidence in the case.
1t is true, as argued and contended by
the Attorney General, that the strongest
evidence is not that which agrees in the
minutest details; evidence OF that nature
is generally doubtful, but the evidence
of Ahuna and Achoy is not of this ma
ture Any fair minded and unprecedented
man can only come to one conclusion
that is that one, or both perhaps, have
testified falsely in part, if not in the
whole of their evidence.
This is a case within the jurisdiction
OF this Court. 1t is not case for COM
initial, where the Court would have to
find that there exists reasonable grounds
to presume that jury would find the
defendant guilty on the evidence in this
case. This Court must either find de-
PENDANT guilty or not guilty, and will
not shift the responsibility onto a
jury. / have no right say a jury
may acquit you and l will leave it e
them to do so, and. Convict you while
y yeGidi may appeal. This Court is required
to pass on this case, and it will do so
and not shirk its duty and put the de-
PENDANT to the expense and delay of a
Jury trial, which could only result in
one way. If the jury gave their verdict
according to the law and the evidence,
they would have to acquit on this show
ing.
To use the words of the Attorney Gen
] It, =,