The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1888-04-26

IL. III naU not DC0u SHOWN GHdC CnCy III
tended to obtain anything from the
Government, The second count was a
charge of injury to the Government
that the defendant conspired with Hay
ley to deprive the Government of certain
moneys, etc. That would not be a
criminal offense, but if they had con-
spired to commit wrongful injury to
the Government they were liable for it.
! The third count charged with conspiracy
in being knowingly concerned in the re-
moval of certain dutiable goods from the
| Custom House without the payment of
| of duty. It was not charged that such
removal was unlawful; the statute (of
1856 did not require it. A great deal of
testimony had been given which had
very little to do with the case. The
issue, which was very simple one, was
this Whether the defendant "conspired
and confederated' with Hayley, or lent
himself to the plan of Hayley, to obtain
goods out of the Custom House without
paying the duties due thereon. If so, it
was fraudulent and he would be liable
on the second and third counts. He
was not charged in specific words with
unlawful removal. The law of 1886 took
that for granted. 1t was the privilege of
the defense to show that the goods might
have been withdrawn for the King or
for diplomat, but they had not shown
it. His Honor here quoted the law de-
Of .t h
regard which provides that they shall
enjoy exemption from duty on proving
to the Minister of Foreign Affairs that
they are properly qualified to be en-
titled to such exemption. His Honor,
continuing, said: Defendant is bound to
know the law, but he is not bound, 7
think, to know whether Mr. Canavarro
had qualified himself by proving to the
satisfaction of the Foreign Department
that he was entitled to this exemption.
Any dealer might innocently take it for
granted that they had all accredited
themselves in the proper way. The
question of importation had been raised.
The law was that these diplomats would
goods in bond for sale by them. But
the Court did not hold that the failure
of this defendant to understand the
technical construction of the word elm
ported" would implicate him criminally
He was bound to know that the diplomat
had not the right to take them except
for his private use and consumption.
The Court charged that it was not within
the statute to procure goods by order of
a diplomat and put them into stock. It
would be against the statute of 1886.
Anyone doing that would be liable on
charge of conspiracy, and it would be no
defense to prove that he had previously
bought goods of this dealer and the
dealer wanted to fill up his stock. A
good deal had been said about the in
ducement defendant could have. It was
not necessary for the Crown to prove in
ducement, though it might strengthen
their case. If the jury found that there
was mutual understanding between
them, then he was liable What Cana
varro meant was nothing to do with the
that he drew the goods and put them
into his store. II they found that that
was his intention when he took this
order then he would be liable for con-
spiracy to injure the Government by de-
priving it of revenue. A good deal had
been said about the practices prevailing
among liquor dealers in regard to with
drawal of goods from the Custom House.
His Honor was under the impression
that the testimony said $4,000 had been
lost to the Government through goods
being withdrawn in this way, though it
did not say that all such Withdrawals
were illegal. 1t had been implied that a
scandalous state of things existed and
was winked at by the Government Off |
Gals. That Was no defense. If it were |
true, that was all the more reason WHY
the Government should stop it. 1t was |
no defense to say that the Government |
officers were lax. It would be the duty
of the jury to give the defendant the !
benefit OF any doubt. They could not |
convict him unless he was knowingly |
concerned and that he had an under |
standing with Hayley to carry this mat |
ter through, knowing that the goods |
were not intended for CanavarrO. If |
they could reconcile the facts with the !
theory of defendants innocence they were !
to acquit him if not they must convict. !
AS to the intentions of defendant and |
Hayley, there was very little evidence. |
Facts and inferences must be used as |
circumstantial evidence If it were |
found that Hayley was the only one who |
contemplated violation of the law that |
would not lmplicate this defendant. One !
cannot make conspiracy. His Honor,
in conclusion, summarized his charge /
thus: That conspiracy, being the gist of
the offense, the jury must be satisfied
that there was an understanding between
the parties to effect any object that the
mere proof of wrong intent by one is not
c,l1H i..ic tlnnt c.E4I