The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1886-08-12
THE MIUHIELs OPIUM CASE.
Review of the Evidence by Judge
RIckertOn - Discharge OF Defend
ant

ant
At o'clock yesterday afternoon Police
Justice Bickerton delivered the following
decision in the case of the Crown VS.
Michiels:
This is a specific charge OF having
opium unlawfully in possession in Hon
olulu within the three days, viz. 29th,
Both and 3lst of July last, more particu-
larly on the 31st ultimo. We cannot go /
outside OF this charge.
I have given this case very careful con- .
sideration, and have fully examined the /
authorities cited by counsel, although
understood the Attorney General to ad- /.
NIT that the law and authorities cited by /
counsel were correct 1t would appear
that there is no question that the valise
and opium therein were found on de-
PENDANTS premises on Saturday, the 31st
ultimo, at about 6 80 a. In. in fact, it is
not denied by the defense, 50 that the
case is narrowed down to the issue of
whether defendant had guilty knowl
edge of the presence of the opium on
his premises at any time during the 29th,
Both and 31st of last month (July). 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 circumstantial evidence
must be considered in this connection.
The evidence in this case is very con-
hIcting, and some of the witnesses must
have testified to what they knew to be
untrue. The proof must not only be
consistent with defendants guilt, but in
consistent with any other rational con-
clusion. The circumstances and facts
relied upon must be established to
moral certainty, beyond a reasonable
doubt.
think the definition of reasonable
doubt given by the counsel for defend
ant is fair one, and well supported by
authorities, viz: cit is that state which.
after entire comparison and considera-
ton OF all the evidence, leaves the mind
Of the jurors in that condition that they
cannot say they feel an abiding con-
viction to moral certainty of the truth
oil the charges, a certainty that convinces
and directs the understanding and sat
1sfies the reason and judgment of those
who are bound to act conscientiouslv
upon it" 1t is for the prosecution to
prove the guilt of the defendant, and not
Tor the defendant to prove his innocence.
of oH,1
Officers Good and Hopkins is simply to
the effect that the opium was found on
defendants premises, and in some
points may be said to attack the credi-
bllity of some of the other witnesses.
find from the evidence that the warrant
was read to defendant before he began
to investigate or examine the valise in
which the opium was found. The evil
dence OF guilty knowledge is virtually
confined to the two witnesses, Ahuna
and Achoy, who contradict each other
very materially in many respects; one
or the other has testified falsely
Ahuna says that when Achoy entered
the 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
anything, he only looked about; he went
in to look about. Again, Ahuna says
defendant took tin of opium from I'M
der the counter and held it up in full
view Showing how defendant held it up,
and passed it to Achoy, who took it and
examined it. Achoy says that Ahuna
and not the defendant, went behind the
counter and took tin of opium up and
showed it to him. Again, Ahuna SAYS
that when Achoy returned that after
noon there were a number of people in
the store and defendant took no notice of
him. Achoy says that at his sec
ond visit there were only de-
PENDANT and Ahuna in the store, and
that they all talked together, and he
(Achoy) said he would come in the
morning for the opium. Ahuna further
says that defendant did not leave the
store that afternoon, but remained there
until they closed the store; that he did
not see where defendant took the opium
from, or where he returned it to; that he
did not know the opium was there; that
defendant did not ask him (Ahuna) if it
was safe to sell to Achoy. This GER
tainly does not seem to be reasonable.
Achoy was a stranger to defendant
Ahuna further says that when he got the
key of the store from defendant on Sat
urday morning nothing was said about
the opium, and defendant was in bed.
This does not seem reasonable; if de-
PENDANT knew the opium was to be DE-
livered at 6 30 a. M, and that was the
case, and he kneTg'--iif It, certainly some
thiT11gg; +%Toqld-~have been said. Ahuna
says there was nothing said about how
many tins there were when the bargain
was made on Friday. Achoy says the
bargain was for 81 tins, and that all the
talk and bargain were made through
Ahuna.
Ahuna says Achoy returned the sec
ond time between and O'Clock; but
afterwards says he is positive it was 3
o'clock, for he looked at his watch.