The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1886-01-28

A. care you short-sightod? Read
the bill for yourself" Another bill
in Mr.. Oakley's handwriting was
produced, and identified by witness.)
G. "Wherc is the item you objected
to for extras?" A. "What l mean
by striking out is that l objected
to the items" @. "How did you
know what ought to be struck QUIT"
A. ~ made inquiries. One mechanic
remarked, that the Queen had been
hogged on that BILL" q. care you
sure that was o mechanic?' A.
81 cannot remember, | have never
had any experience in building"
When l went to see Mr.. tombstone
on Sunday, do not believe 1 asked
him to make correction. l only
asked him for the name of the
writer. Next day, Mr.. tombstone
told me if made counter state
ment, he might insert it. When
Mills came to me, | drafted his Or
der against myself.
The order as taken from Her
Majesty's receipt book was then put
in evidence and was admitted by the
defense, when the prosecution rested
their case.
Mr.. S. B. Dole for the defendant,
then moved for q discharge of his
client on the ground that the indict-
ment charges upon defendant an
attack upon Mr.. Paul Neumann as
an attorney at law, while the publ
cation complained of attacked Mr..
Neumann solely in his official capa-
city as Acknowledgement of the
Kingdom. That nothing had been
advanced to show any relation be-
tween Mr.. Neumann and Oakley as
attorney and client. That if he had
no relation with Oakley as an at
torney and as the Indictment did not
allege that he had been injured in
his professional character, then the
whole case falls to the ground.
Mr.. Hatch, for the prosecution,
argued that the specific charge of
libel was made against Mr.. Neumann
acting in the capacity of Attorney
General for the Government, or
private attorney for the Queen, and
that it was not material to the issue
in which of the two it was.
The Judgment of the court was
then delivered, as follows:-
L have considered this indictment
very carefully, and have watched
the evidence with view to ascertain
the application of it to the facts
charged. From the opening of the
plaintiffs counsel until the present
l have been pressed with the ide;
that the libel is not alleged to bc
against the prosecutor in the prac
tice of his profession. Counsel fo
the prosecution admitted that tn,
matter would not be libelous a
against private individual. fec
no doubt that the indictment is in
sufficient; it does not allege that tn
publication is of and concerning tn
prosecutor in his profession, or is in
tended to injure him in his profes
sion. The whole publication is Sc
out and is alleged to be false, bu
there is nothing in the indictmen
pointing out the defamatory part
or any innuendo as to the meaning
understood by the prosecutor, AM
it is admitted that some portio
| (Mr. Neumann's letter) is true. A
l understand the law, it is necessar
to allege that the publication relate
to the prosecutor in his profession
and although l should hold that tn
publication is libelous if the prope
averments were made, l feel that
must order verdict for the defenC
ant on the ground that the Crow
has failed to prove the charge.
The jury, without leaving TIL
box, returned verdict of NC
GUILTY, upon which the defendar
was discharged.