The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1886-01-22
THE LIBEL CASE.
Mr.. Arthur tombstone Committed fer
Trial TO the Supreme COurt-Prelim-
mary Examination.

In the Police Court yesterday Mr. Arthur
tombstone was brought up on remand
charged with libel The Court room was
crowded with persons anxious to hear the
case. Messrs. w. A. Whiting and f. NJ.
Hatch appeared for the prosecution, and
Mr.. S. B. Dole for the defendant. The
charge is entered as follows: Charge, pub
fishing a libel in that he did at Honolulu,
in the Island of Oahu, on the 10Th day OF
January, 1886, commit the crime of pub
fishing libel of and concerning one Paul
Neumann, counsellor and attorney-at-
law in said Honolulu, and did III a certain
newspaper called the DAILY Honolulu
Press" publish wilfully and maliciOusly,
with intent to injure the said Paul Neu-
mann in fame, reputation and his good
name, and to bring him, said Paul Neu-
mann, into disgrace, adherence, Odium,
hatred, contempt and ridicule the following
statement (Which said statement is attached
to the affidavit and annexed to the warrant
in the case), and that said statement was of
and concerning said Paul Neumann, and
false.
Mr. Dole claimed that the charge should
be made as Paul Neumann, Attorney Gen
eral of the Kingdom.
His Honor held that the charge was
properly made out.
The first witness called for the prosecu-
ton by Mr.. Whiting was:
Frederick Jones, sworn, stated: | work
at the Hawaiian Hotel, Honolulu. 1
recognize this paper Ga copy of the "HOno-
lulu Daily Press of January 10th pro-
duced). first saw it at the Hotel bar. 1t
came on Saturday, January 10th, in the
regular course of delivery. The regular
carrier delivered it. (The paper which
contained the article on which the suit was
based was then offered in evidence).
Cross-examined: am barkeeper at the
Hawaiian Hotel.
David Dayton, sworn, stated: l recollect
the article In paper similar to this (taking
the copy of the Press" offered in evidence)
January 10th. 1t is a newspaper published
in Honolulu called the Honolulu Daily
Press" l know Arthur tombstone is
editor, Last Sunday Mr.. Neumann and
home, Kukui Place. Mr.. Neumann told
tombstone his business there, which was in
regard to an article published in the
Honolulu Daily Press" the day previous
concerning himself. Mr.. Neumann asked
him if he was responsible for that publica-
ton and tombstone stated he was. Mr..
Neumann asked tombstone if he would be
willing to retract it if it was shown to him
it was untrue. tombstone said those mat
tiers were given to him; he was working for
a party and he could not do anything until
he consulted his attorney, Mr.. Dole. He
would be able to let Mr.. Neumann know
the following day before noon. That is
about all the conversation which took
place. 1t was good natured. 1 know Paul
Neumann; he is an attorney and Attorney
General of the Kingdom. He has and does
practice in these Courts.
Cross-examined | am Deputy Marshal
During the interview Mr.. Neumann said
he knew the editors business, but asked
tombstone if he would give the names of
the writers. He replied that he must first
see his attorney. 1t was the article COM
planned of written by other parties. | do
not think the names of the parties was the
chief point in the interview. l do not
know the reply given the following day.
Paul Neumann, sworn, stated: L am an
attOrney-at-law and at present Attorney
General of the Kingdom. l am the COM
plainant in this case l have examined the
article | first saw it last Saturday even
ing in a copy of the Daily Honolulu
Press" | am the Paul Neumann named
i'll the article. The statement made by me
to the Bulletin" is true. The statement
that follows it that appeared in the ADvER-
User, that Mr.. Oakley had no claim against
the Government, is also true. 1t is not
true that it was my duty to pay any of the