The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1886-08-09

bis client was premature that the
Marshal and his officers, and even
the Attorney .GyneraiA had been
misled. lie held that no, case had
been made out, but that there was a
conspiracy between theSoffftefs and
All Choy forspurposes'e f sgaini His
only objection hadibeepHte, the evil
dence of Good, who scemed Ito have
been carried outside Of thssaaets by
his feelings.4 He had. eskesb,Ahuna
if the oath hSGAhadni token was as
binding asesNne.sadmfnistered ac-
cording to the rites of his own re-
ligion. Ii was NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
a witness to state anything false on
the stand whether he considered the
oath taken binding or not. The
evidence of Ahuna was one tissue
of lies from beginning to end. Not
q line, or corner, or segment, of it
fitted into the story told by All
Choy. The prosecution had not at
tempted to fasten the guilt on any
one else, but simply pleaded entire
innocence of the ownership of the
opium. If Ahuna's statement that
no bargain was made on Friday was
true, then All Choy's was lie. 1t
was immaterial which of the China
men lied: he believed both of them
lied. Had they more opportunities
of comparing notes, the two men
could have constructed more con-
sistent story. All Choy was the
greatest benefactor thiss community
had. There had been much wrangl-
ing over the Question of licensing
opium, but when All Choy came
forward and said he was only in
huenced by patriotic motives in de-
nouncing their client, the question
was solved. With All Choy there
would be no more smuggling of
opium. He revieweds Che evidence
to show contradiction between
Ahuna and All Choy, from which he
concluded Ahunas testimony was
utterly false. They had not intro
duced evidence to prove an alibi,
but fortunately it turned. out that
their witnesses had proved that
Michiels was not, las Ahuna had
sworn, engaged all Friday after
noon in his store reading and writ
ing. All Choy skipped out of the
store whenever the officers entered.
That was not surprising, as persons
engaged in such work did not usually
stay long in the place where the
work was carried on. Every item
in the evidence pointed as direct as
the needle to the pole star, to con-
spiracy between these Cinnamon to
put up job on Michiels. Was ii
reasonable to suppose that Michiels
would make m appointment to de.
liver opium and receive the money
for it, at a certain hour. in the morn.
ing, and then.besfonnd lying in bee
at that hour? He had never, in al
his experience in this country
known case TO be brought for the
unlawful possession of opium upon
such tlimsy evidence as this one.
The Marshal had doubtless told the
truth, when he said he saw Michiels
going to the Post Office, but yet there
was not ia particle of evidence that Mi
chiefs met All Choy in his store that
afternoon. Could any man in his
senses believe that their client woulC
have, in full view of such a thronget
thoroughfale as Fort street, divet
under his counter and, pulling out I
tin of opium, hold it aloft to show
to All Choy. Commenting ON tn
Importance that attached TO tn
time at which each step of til
defendant had been made, he aske'
why it was that the prosecution hat
produced no evidence of Govern
ment officers regarding the tim
when All Choy laid his information
at the Government building. Il
conclusion he claimed that Their
was DO evidence 70 convict hi
client; that nothing outside of thu
offense charged could be brough
forward against his client; tina
gully knowledge had not beer
proved against the defendant, a
must have been done to SECURE con
viction; that guilt must be proved
beyond a reasonable doubt, bu
there had been no proof to tina
effect except the testimony o
Ahuna and All Choy, who both hat
evidently procured themselves; tina
a mere preponderance of evidence
was not sufficient 10 convict, ant
that defendants word was as goot
as that of either of those two Chi
nese; that the proof presented mus
not only be consistent with the gull
of defendant, but be inconsisten
with every other theory; that tn
Court was sitting in the position O
jury, who must give the defendan
the benefit of any reasonable doubt
1t was the disposition of many II
the community to believe the wors
regarding any mans character, bu
it was unnecessary to ask thi
Court to pay no attention to rumor
He cited Sir William Blackstone il
the sentiment that smuggling wa
only a slight mlsdemeanor, venia
offense, and claimed an acquittal O