The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1886-01-28
ACQUITTED.
The Libel Charge Against Mr.. Arthur
tombstone Fails on a Technically.

nearing at II O'Clock. MeSsrs. w. A.
Whiting and f. NJ. Hatch appeared for
the prosecution, and S. B. Doe for the
defendant. The following jury was
drawn: Henry Warehouse, II. NJ. Ben
son, q. ID. Freeth, S. NJ. Whitman, A.
Z. Mossman, J. ]. Locker, a. L. Smith
II. +. Mcintyre, Chas. Hammer, E. A
Jones, j. F. Daley.
Mr.. Waterhouse stated he had been
in politics lately, and thought he ought
not to sit on this case. Excused.
| Mr.. Benson said he had expressed q
| decided opinion on this case. He could
not say whether the evidence would re-
! move it or not Excused.
II. E. Mcintyre asked to be excused.
He was in way mixed up with the
case. Excused.
f. A. Jones had formed an opinion
and expressed it. No amount of evil
| dence would alter it. His Honor told
him that after such a statement he did
not think he was a fit person to sit on
any jury. Excused.
Messrs. Henry Davis, H. w Morse &,
H. Gum and Geo. Lucas were--then
called
Mr.. Lucas said he had formed an
opinion on the case. Excused.
Mr.. Morse was challenged by Mr.
Dole.
Z. McInerny and R. w Cathcart were
called. Mr.. Dole challenged the former,
and w II AIdricb baiD0 oolIad II, biS
place, the jury was satisfac tory to both
parties.
Mr. Whiting opened the case for the
prosecution by reading the indictment.
He stated they should prove that the de-
PENDANT, tombstone, is responsible, and
that the article is untrue.
Frederick Jones was called and sworn.
He deposed: My place of business is at
the Hawaiian Hotel. This paper (''Daily
Honolulu Press" of January Is, 1856
was left at the Hotel bar on the 10Th by
the regular carrier. This is the identical
paper Cross-examined: I identify it
by marks on it.
This paper, which contained the arti-
Gle on which the libel is based, was then
offered in evidence.
David Dayton, sworn, stated: l heard
of the article on the 18th and read it on
the 18th In company with Mr.. Neu-
| mann L went to Johnstone's house on
Sunday, the 18th Mr. Neumann in
! visit, that it was in regard to an article
published in the press concerning
him. Mr.. Neumann asked Johnson if
zhe was the responsible editor OF the
paper, and he said he supposed he was.
Mr.. Neuma1sz asked him if he would
give the names of the authors of the
article He replied that he could not I'M
til he had seen his attorney, Mr.. Dole. He
would let Mr. Neumann have an answer
on Monday morning at IL o'clock. There
was further conversation about retrac-
ton if Mr. tNeumann would prove to him
it was wrong. I know Mr.. Neumann;
he is an attorney-at-law.
Cross-examined tombstone said he
could not make any promises until he
had seen his attorney. Twas not present
the next day when tombstone talked
with Mr.. Neumann.
The next witness called was Mr.. Neu-
mann, whose evidence was substantially
the same as reported by US at the time of
Police Court.
Mr. Whiting announced that the
prosecution had closed their testimony
and rested their case.
Mr.. Dole then moved the Court to in
struct the jury to find verdict for the
defendant, upon the ground that the in
dictment did not charge that Mr. Neu-
mann was Mr.. Oakley's attorney; in
other. words, that the relation of attor-
ney and client did not exist between Mr..
Neumann and Mr.. Oakley.
The Court, in delivering its opinion,
said that the indictment was detective
first, because it contained the whole ar
ticle, and alleged it to be untrue, while
really some of it was true; second, that
the alleged ibelous paragraph was not
specifically pointed out and, third, that
the indictment did not charge that the
alleged libelous paragraph was written
of and concerning Mr.. Neumann in his
profession as an attorney at law, with
the intent to injure him in his pro-
fessional business. His Honor further
said that the Indictment, as drawn,
charged the whole of the article as being
libel upon Mr.. Neumann, as private
individual, and it not being libelous per
Sc, he must instruct the jury to find for
the defendant, which they duly did. In
delivering this instruction His Honor
said that if the indictment had been
properly drawn, containing the proper
inuendoes, the paragraph would have
been clearly gross libel upon Mr. Neu
mann as an attorney at law.