The Hawaiian gazette., 1886-08-17
The Michel opium Case.
Judze Rlok,rton,s Deoision.

particularly on the 3lst ultimo. We cannot go
outside of this charge.
1 have given this very clretul conSldera-
ton, and have fully examined the authorities
clte1 by COUNSEL, although understood the Attor-
neyG9nerdl to aimit that the law anu autnorlties
cited by the counsel correct. 1t would APP
pear that there Is question tn 1t the vallse and
opium therein found on defendants pre-
misses on Saturday the 3lst ultmo, at about 8: 30
a. m; IL fact 1t Is not denied by the dsfense, so
that the case is narrowed down TO the issue of
whether defendant had guilty knowledge OF tue
presence of the opium ON his premises at any time
during the 29lh Both and 3lst of last month
duly. 1t is essential that this should be proved
by the prosecution to warrant conviction, and
must find that from the evidence, and not from
any prescriptions; both the positive and circnm-
stautial evidence must be considered IN this con
necLon. The evidence in this case is very
Aicting, and some of the witnesses must have
testified to what they knew to be untrue. The
proof must not only be consistent with defendants
quit, but Inconsistent with any other rational
conclusion. The circumstances and facts relied
upon must be established to a moral certainty,
beyond reasonable doubt.
think the definition of reasonable doubt !"
given by the counsel for defendant fair one,
and well supported by authorities, VIZ: " 1t IS
that state which, after entire comparison and con
sIderatIon of all the evIdence leaves the mind OF
the jurors in that condition that they cannot say
they feel an abiding conviction to moral certain
ty of the truth of the charges, a certainty that
convinces and directs the understanding aud sat
isles tue reason and Judgment of those who are
bound to act cOnscientIousy upon 1t" 1t IS for
the prosecution to prove the guilt of the defend
ants, and not for the defendant to prove his H.
nocence.
The evidence of Marshal Soper and Officers
Good aud Hopkins is simply to the effect that the
opium was found on defendants premises, and IN
some points may be said to attack the crediblllty
of some of the other witnesses mud from the
evidence that the warrant was read to defendant
before he began to investigate or examine the
valise in which the opium found. The evil
dence of guilty knowledge is virtually confined to
the two witnesses, Ahuna and Achoy, who COLI
trddIct each other very materially In many re-
spects; one or the other has testified falsely.
Anuua says that when Achoy entered tue store
he asked for and wanted to buy hat this he
says in the direct and cross-examination. Achoy
says that when he went in he did not ask for any
thing, he only looked about be went In to Look
about. Again, Ahuna says defendant took thu
of opium from under the count,r and held it up In
full view showing how defendant held 1t mp and
passed it to Achoy who took it and examined 1t.
Achoy SAYS that Ahuna and not the defendant,
went behind the counter and took a tin of opium
up aud showed 1t to him. Again, Ahuna says that
when Achoy returned that afternoon there were
number of people in the store and defendant took
notice of nm AchOy says that at his second visit
there was ouly defendant and Ahuna in the store,
and that they all talked together, and he AchoyI
said he would come in the morning for the opium.
Ahuna further says that defendant did not leave
tie store that afternoon, but NAMED there until
they closed the store that he did not where
defendant took the opium from, or where he re-
turned it to; that he did not know the opium was
there; that defendant did not ask him Ahuna If
it was ssfe to sell to AchOy. Tns certainly does
not seem to be reasonable. Achoy was stranger
to defendant. Ahuna further says that when he
got the key of tue store from defendant Satur
day morning nothing was said about the opium,
and defendant was Ill bed. This does not seem
reasonable; If defendant kne the opium was to
be delivered at 6:3O M, and that was the case,
and lie knew 1t, certainly something would have
been said. Ahuna says there was nothing said
about how many tins there were when the bargain
made Oh Friday. Achoy says the bargain was
for 81 tins, aud that all the talk aud bargain
made through Ahuna.
Ahuna says Achoy returned the second time be-
tween and o'clock; but afterwards says he is
positive it was O'Clock. for he looked at his
watch Achoy insists that he did not give the in
formation until after his second visit; and yet
Marshal Soper says the warrant signed about
2o'clock, and he was at Mclnernys store few
minutes after, when AcEoy came down the street
and stopped at the Post Office and Soper says, |
"I went to the door and showed myself to him."
and he went on down to defendants store went |
III aDd came out again in a few minutes.
1t Is a fact that the warrant WAS signed few |
minutes after o'clock, perhaps 10 or Is minutes
had just begun a meeting of the Commissioners |
on Road Damages, when Mr. Soper came in and |
called me into the private room to sign the war
rant Inc Commissioners met at p. NJ. that af- |
ternOon. 1t is evidence that Marshal Soper and |
AchOY understood each other; the Marshal as |
much as says so. Achoy says: Il did not speak |
to anyone before went to the store about opium"
In the first part of his testimony be says he only
went in to look about; he further Says positively |
that defendant bargained for thirty. tins of
opium. He contradicts himself several times as
to where he went after leaving defendants store
both visits. First be says he went to tue wharf;
then he says he went up Fort street to Dodd's |
stables; then he says he went straight to the Gov
ernment House, after second visit, looked at the
clock and found it was O'Clock.
Now, what is the defense Defendants evil
denoe is denial of the evidence of Ahuna and
Achoy and testiies to his whereabouts that
day. His whereabouts also testified to by
Messrs. Roche, Levey, Stillman, David Naone and
Ward. Mr.. Writings evidence shows MIR. Levey's |
evidence TO be correct, or Nearly If Ahuna's
and Achoys statement is true then all these gen.
tlemen have testified falsely; at least the Court
would so have to tud
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.
Leveys auction room with Mr.. Roche awaiting
for Captain Armand, while he was at MIR. Whiting's
doing business. Ahuna swears positively that de-
PENDANT was at the store all the afternoon II the
defendant was the principal in this affair then
Ahuna and Achoy we're his accompices, and they
we're concerned IN unlawful 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 evil
dence of an aocomp lice, unsupported and uncorro-
borated, and it will not be contended by any legal
gentlemen that conviction can be had under
those circumstances.
The theory of tue defense that there was a con-
spiracy and put-up job of Ahuna and Aohoy to put
the opium there for the purpose of convictinR de-
fendant either out OF revenge or for gain, is not
in my mind tensbe. The quantity of opium WAS
too large one two tins would have been enough,
if that the object But it may be that Ahuna
was dealing with Achoy, who for gain, betrayed
him. and Achoy seeing more prospect of large
gain in his share of fine, etc., if the made
against defendant, who probably was better al lie
20 pay heavy fine, agreed Sith Ahuna to shift il
upon defendant.
am iucined to think all the opium was not in
the store when the bargain made. On ex-
animation find it consists of four distinct lots
We will take case TO illustrate how any man